The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 1994):
The defendants also argue that the government failed to enunciate a specific purpose for admitting the other acts evidence. In demonstrating that Rule 404(b) evidence is relevant, the government must " 'articulate precisely the evidential hypothesis by which a fact of consequence may be inferred from the other acts evidence.' " United States v. Brooke, 4 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Mehrmanesh, 689 F.2d at 830).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.