this testimony was the only way the government could establish the relationship between Lane and the co-defendant, and that was certainly relevant to the government’s case. Accordingly, the district court correctly found that a “genuine need” for the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. (App.61-62). We have held in numerous cases that evidence of prior criminal activity is admissible under Rule 404(b) to show the relationship between a witness and a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Butch, 256 F.3d 171 (3d Cir.2001) (allowing witness in pharmaceutical theft case to testify as to defendant’s prior participation in identical theft); see also United States v. Simmons, 679 F.2d 1042, 1050 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1134, 103 S.Ct. 3117, 77 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the district court gave an
holding the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it may find the defendant guilty if the jury found the defendant had conspired with the two coconspirators named in the indictment or both of them or others where evidence tended to show a conspiracy between the defendant and some person other than the named coconspirators holding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if the jury found the defendant agreed with at least one other person where the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with a single named individual and the evidence tended to show the defendant may have conspired with a number of persons not just the named coconspirator to commit an unlawful act holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators holding that evidence may be introduced to provide necessary background information to show an ongoing relationship between the defendant and a coconspirator and to help the jury understand the coconspirators role in the scheme holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury