so Durand could have filed a motion to ask such questions himself on voir dire before the jury’s impanelment. While it may strain credulity to imagine this drug and alcohol evidence was necessary to the government’s case, we reverse “ ‘only when the evidence clearly had no bearing on the case and was introduced solely to show defendant’s propensity to engage in criminal misconduct.’ ” Gant, 721 F.3d at 509 (quoting United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815, 819 (8th Cir.2008)). The district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in evidentiary matters by allowing the marijuana testimony. 2. Hypothetical Questions Beckman objects to what he calls the government’s use of “guilt assuming hypotheticals” during trial. See United States v. Barta, 888 F.2d 1220, 1224-25 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Beckman objected to two such questions early
holding the district court erred by allowing questions premised on an assumption of guilt holding that the trial court erred in allowing an equitable reduction in the amount required to redeem the subject property holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding the district court erred by reviewing the evidence and making an evidentiary ruling on secondtier review holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant