1875 (stating that the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment "is the only effective deterrent to police misconduct in the criminal context, and that without it the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures would be a mere 'form of words’" (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1692, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961))). 5 . See United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575, 579 (5th Cir.) (stating that under Fed.R.Evid. 104, "the judge alone decides preliminary questions which relate to the competence of evidence, and the jury decides preliminary questions as to the conditional relevancy of the evidence”), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2836, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979). 6 . See United States v. Noll, 600 F.2d 1123, 1128 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Monaco, 702 F.2d
holding that trial court did not commit error when it allowed state to reopen evidence to establish venue holding that it was not reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question for fifty minutes after which the jury returned a verdict holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question holding that a district court did not commit reversible error because it attached great weight to one factor holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict