killing, a rival drug dealer; (2) co-defendant Plask-ett’s statement to Gooden, after the McNeil murder charged in this ease, that “I told you we was going to handle that”; and (3) McNeil’s statement regarding his own plan to kill Barnes. The deference we accord district judge decisions to admit evidence applies with particular force to its balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice pursuant to Rule 403. See United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 310 (2d Cir.2007). Indeed, on such review, we “must look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” United States v. Rubin, 37 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, where, as here, Barnes raised no 403 ir.1983) (<HOLDING>). While Barnes maintains that the statement
recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence recognizing substantial probative value of tape recording that provided direct evidence of knowledge element of crime charged holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged recognizing high probative value of evidence providing conduct that was part of the very act charged