purpose of the rule is lost.” Id. (citations omitted). Because fairness is clearly the focus of the rule, “the general unreliability of inadmissible evidence should be one of the court’s considerations in determining whether fairness requires admission.” Jordan v. State, 694 So.2d 708, 712 (Fla.1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, Siegel’s testimony that the charges in the St. Lucie County case were dropped was irrelevant. As Professor Eh-rhardt has explained, the relevancy of similar-fact evidence “flows from the underlying act rather than the state or the judicial system having taken a particular action with respect to the charges.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.9 (2010); see also Holland v. State, 432 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (<HOLDING>), approved, 466 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). Thus, the
holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants request for severance because the district court nullified any prejudicial error when it repeatedly admonished the jury throughout the trial to consider the evidence only against the defendant to whom it related and at the end of trial gave the jury instructions that admonished the jury to consider separately each offense and evidence in support of each offense holding that trial court did not err in denying the defendants request to inform the jury that the williams rule offense had been nolle prossed holding the district court did not err in denying the defendants rule 60b3 motion where the defendant had an opportunity to cure any prejudice because the plaintiffs failure to disclose evidence did not interfere with the defendants ability to proceed holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment