context: Reply Brief of Appellant at 3. Miles' testimony was introduced on the fifth day of a six-day trial. The trial judge was in the best position to evaluate its probative value in the context of all the evidence presented.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 427 F.2d 987, 990-91
citation_a.parenthetical: "It would be awkward to refuse evidence bearing on an. element of the crime because, through hindsight, we are able to say that it proved unnecessary in the end."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Engleman, 648 F.2d 473, 479 (8th Cir.1981) (admission not an abuse of discretion where “[t]he evidence concerning intent and motive was not so great as to make the evidence of similar crimes cumulative”); see also Havelock v. United States, 427 F.2d 987, 990-91 (10th Cir.) (“It would be awkward to refuse evidence bearing on an. element of the crime because, through hindsight, we are able to say that it proved unnecessary in the end.”), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 252, 27 L.Ed.2d 251 (1970).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 648 F.2d 473, 479
citation_b.parenthetical: admission not an abuse of discretion where "[t]he evidence concerning intent and motive was not so great as to make the evidence of similar crimes cumulative"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Engleman, 648 F.2d 473, 479 (8th Cir.1981) (admission not an abuse of discretion where “[t]he evidence concerning intent and motive was not so great as to make the evidence of similar crimes cumulative”); see also Havelock v. United States, 427 F.2d 987, 990-91 (10th Cir.) (“It would be awkward to refuse evidence bearing on an. element of the crime because, through hindsight, we are able to say that it proved unnecessary in the end.”), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 252, 27 L.Ed.2d 251 (1970).