Hawg you're all over the place and not making any sense. This is another example of your judgment being clouded by the participants.
As BMX noted, there is no 10 year limit applicable to FRE 404(b). Courts have admitted prior crimes and acts going back decades for permissible purposes outlined in 404(b)(2) - there is no hard cut off. Time can be relevant as to admissibility, but the SoL does not dictate that. Roscoe appears to believe the prosecution was seeking to convict Manafort on those actions, and he's wrong.
Regardless, your comment about prior bad acts and admissibility is more a question of FRE 403 and not 404(b) given the purposes the evidence is being offered. The prosecution is following the exact correct procedures regarding notice under FRE 404(b). The prejudicial nature would still need to be weighed.
You keep referring to "best evidence," but that is not a requirement in any way under FRE 403 or 404. Although 403 can preclude needlessly cumulative evidence or evidence that would cause undue delay, there is simply no need for any piece of evidence for prior bad acts to be the "best evidence." At this point, I think you are just throwing out legal terms to conflate issues, as "best evidence" is only a requirement for writings under FRE 1002.
Lastly, the mere fact that the prosecution is seeking a ruling regarding the admissibility of this particular piece of evidence in no way indicates that the prosecution believes it is their "best evidence" for a conviction. Have you read the prosecution's other 404(b) evidence filings? Is this all they are seeking to admit? The prosecution would not be doing their jobs if they didn't file this - if Manafort argues at trial that he didn't understand FARA requirements and the prosecution didn't seek to admit this evidence under 404(b) procedures they likely would have missed the boat.
As BMX noted, there is no 10 year limit applicable to FRE 404(b). Courts have admitted prior crimes and acts going back decades for permissible purposes outlined in 404(b)(2) - there is no hard cut off. Time can be relevant as to admissibility, but the SoL does not dictate that. Roscoe appears to believe the prosecution was seeking to convict Manafort on those actions, and he's wrong.
Regardless, your comment about prior bad acts and admissibility is more a question of FRE 403 and not 404(b) given the purposes the evidence is being offered. The prosecution is following the exact correct procedures regarding notice under FRE 404(b). The prejudicial nature would still need to be weighed.
You keep referring to "best evidence," but that is not a requirement in any way under FRE 403 or 404. Although 403 can preclude needlessly cumulative evidence or evidence that would cause undue delay, there is simply no need for any piece of evidence for prior bad acts to be the "best evidence." At this point, I think you are just throwing out legal terms to conflate issues, as "best evidence" is only a requirement for writings under FRE 1002.
Lastly, the mere fact that the prosecution is seeking a ruling regarding the admissibility of this particular piece of evidence in no way indicates that the prosecution believes it is their "best evidence" for a conviction. Have you read the prosecution's other 404(b) evidence filings? Is this all they are seeking to admit? The prosecution would not be doing their jobs if they didn't file this - if Manafort argues at trial that he didn't understand FARA requirements and the prosecution didn't seek to admit this evidence under 404(b) procedures they likely would have missed the boat.
