the crime charged. If the evidence is cumulative, the trial court should more closely scrutinize its prejudicial effect. If the evidence is necessary to prove an element of the charge, the trial judge may have erred in not sustaining the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Moreover, a defendant may have a valid objection, under federal rule 611(b), that the government’s cross-examination exceeds the scope of the direct. These added considerations are necessary not only to limit the impact of rule 404(b) on rule 608(b), but also to limit the prejudicial effect of allowing the government to have the last say through evidence of a defendant’s prior misconduct. Smith Grading & Paving, 760 F.2d at 581; see also United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 324-25 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of Rule 608(b) is to prevent
holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper