or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Id. The problem with Holcomb’s argument is that the testimony about his other crimes and bad acts was not offered to prove that Holcomb acted in conformity with his bad character. See id. (stating that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts ... may ... be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”). Instead, the evidence was offered to show that Baylis and Putnam had information that they could only have learned from Holcomb, corroborating their claim that Holcomb confessed to killing the Sherrys. See United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1353-55 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not abuse its
holding harmless any error in admitting accuseds confession despite accuseds complaint that confession was given involuntarily holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error holding that admitting extrinsic evidence to corroborate the defendants confession to a cellmate was not reversible error holding that in an arson case there must be other proof that the offense was committed to corroborate a confession by the defendant holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature