Evidence

United States v. McCarty — Study Notes

United States v. McCarty, 789 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2023)

Study notes for United States v. McCarty: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Evidence of prior acts is admissible to prove identity when they are sufficiently similar to the charged offenses.
Professor Notes

In United States v. McCarty, the Ninth Circuit evaluates the admissibility of prior acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically in the context of establishing identity. The court highlights the crucial balancing test required when determining whether such evidence is probative of identity versus being prejudicial. The similarities of McCarty's past fraudulent schemes to the charges at hand provided a factual basis for the court's decision to admit the evidence, thereby reinforcing the idea that a defendant's identity may be established through their modus operandi when sufficiently distinctive. Professors will likely emphasize the implications of this ruling for future cases involving identity and intent, particularly within the realm of fraud.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the significance of Rule 404(b) in this case.
  2. 2What factors did the court consider in determining the admissibility of prior acts?
  3. 3How does the case illustrate the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect?
  4. 4Discuss the standard of similarity required for prior acts to establish identity.
  5. 5What implications does McCarty have for future fraud cases?
  6. 6How would you argue against the admission of prior acts in a case similar to McCarty?
  7. 7What are the broader impacts of this decision on evidentiary standards?
Mnemonic Device

M.O. (Modus Operandi) - Similar past can reveal current identity.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
United States v. MontgomeryIn Montgomery, the court ruled that prior acts were too dissimilar to be relevant for identity purposes.
State v. WilliamsWilliams dealt with a lack of distinctiveness in prior acts, whereas McCarty exhibited a clear pattern that justified the evidence's admission.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Allowing prior acts can prevent habitual offenders from escaping justice by exploiting the commonality of their crimes.

Against the Rule

There is a risk of prejudicing the jury against the defendant by suggesting a propensity to commit the crime rather than proving actual guilt.

Class Discussion Points
  • What criteria should be employed to assess the similarity of prior acts to charged offenses?
  • How do courts balance the probative value of prior acts against the risk of unfair prejudice?
  • In what scenarios might the admission of prior acts be overly prejudicial?
Exam Angle

This case is relevant in exams faced with questions on the admissibility of prior act evidence under Rule 404(b), particularly its application in cases focusing on identity and modus operandi.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.