overdosing on heroin while in New York making a drug delivery for the defendant. See Ortenza Motion at p. 1-2. Cooperating witness Virgilio Gonzalez will further testify that the defendant told him that Ortenza’s death presented a problem for the defendant because his death might draw attention to the defendant’s activities, and that therefore it was important that Ortenza’s body be brought back to Canada and buried. See id. at 2. The defendant objects to the introduction of this evidence on Fed.R.Evid. 403 grounds, arguing that the evidence is unfairly prejudicial and potentially inflammatory. The evidence proffered here is relevant because it tends to show that the defendant paid others to transport drugs between the United States and 72, 180, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) (<HOLDING>). There may be some danger that the jury could
holding evidence of virtually identical offense was relevant to show intent among other things in trial of charged offense holding that unfair prejudice in the criminal context refers to the capacity of relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on grounds different than the offense charged holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge