United States v. Mark Brock Palmer

concurring specially:

I concur in the majority’s disposition of each issue. I disagree, however, with its reading of Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir.1986). Palmerin does not support excusing Palmer from the need to make a contemporaneous objection. Because he did not preserve the post-arraignment statement issue for appeal by objecting at trial, we review for plain error, not abuse of discretion. See United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 570 (9th Cir.1986).

The majority misreads Palmerin by omitting a crucial part of our holding. We held that “where the substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during a hearing on the motion in limine, and the trial court’s ruling permitting introduction of evidence, was explicit and definitive, no further action is required to preserve for appeal the issue of admissibility of that evidence.” Palmerin, 794 F.2d at 1413 (first emphasis in original, second emphasis added).

In Palmerin , defendants sought unsuccessfully to exclude admission of evidence of their guilty pleas by a motion in limine. Id. at 1411. The district court rejected the motion, holding that the evidence was relevant and admissible. We held…

3 F.3d 300 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 855 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Brock PALMER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30291. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1992. Opinion April 5, 1993. Opinion Withdrawn Aug. 16, 1993. Order and Opinion Aug. 16, 1993. Peter S. Schweda, Waldo & Schweda, Spokane, WA, for defendant-appellant. Pamela J. Byerly and Earl A. Hicks, Asst. U.S. Attys., Spokane, WA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Justin L. Quackenbush, Chief District Judge, Presiding. Alan A. McDonald, District Judge, Presiding. Before: WRIGHT, HUG, and POOLE, Circuit Judges. ORDER The opinion filed April 5, 1993, 990 F.2d 490 , is hereby WITHDRAWN. OPINION POOLE, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Mark Brock Palmer appeals his conviction for manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a). Palmer argues that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress, (2) admitting his post-arraignment statement and (3) denying his motion to dismiss. We affirm. I. 2 On the afternoon of February 11, 1991, a Spokane County…

ORDER

The opinion filed April 5, 1993, 990 F.2d 490 , is hereby WITHDRAWN.

OPINION

Appellant Mark Brock Palmer appeals his conviction for manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a). Palmer argues that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress, (2) admitting his post-arraignment statement and (3) denying his motion to dismiss. We affirm.

I.

On the afternoon of February 11, 1991, a Spokane County Sheriff Deputy arrested Jack Roberts after the deputy smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from Roberts’ vehicle during a traffic stop. The deputy obtained a warrant for the search of the car and obtained several bags of marijuana therefrom.

Deputy Cal Walker, who had information regarding Roberts’ growing marijuana at various locations in Spokane County, met with Roberts shortly after his arrest. Roberts gave a statement to Walker and directed him to the site of a marijuana grow at a residence on West Long Lake Road near Ford, Washington, where Palmer lived with his two children. Roberts stated that he and Palmer were conducting a marijuana grow operation in the residence.

Walker’s supervisor, Lieutenant Michael Myhre,…