context: (Trial Tr. 197, July 7, 2004.) This line of inquiry improper, as it was beyond the scope of anything Turbe testified about.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal, since none of the defendants made any general denial of wrongdoing which might have justified rebuttal in the form of evidence of uncharged crimes
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Pantone, 609 F.2d 675, 681 (3d Cir. 1979) (noting that rebuttal testimony is improper when it “does not rebut anything said by the defendant.”); see also United States v. Forsythe, 594 F.2d 947 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal, since none of the defendants made any general denial of wrongdoing which might have justified rebuttal in the form of evidence of uncharged crimes).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 609 F.2d 675, 681
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that rebuttal testimony is improper when it "does not rebut anything said by the defendant."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Pantone, 609 F.2d 675, 681 (3d Cir. 1979) (noting that rebuttal testimony is improper when it “does not rebut anything said by the defendant.”); see also United States v. Forsythe, 594 F.2d 947 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal, since none of the defendants made any general denial of wrongdoing which might have justified rebuttal in the form of evidence of uncharged crimes).