Opinion ID: 202894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Marijuana Testimony

Text: Stark challenges O'Neill's testimony stating that Stark told him that he was employed by a Fabian Ruiz to transport what he approximated to be 350 pounds of marijuana and Torres' testimony stating that he and others unload[ed] marijuana into [his] trunk. Stark argues, without citing to any legal support, that these statements violated the court's suppression order because they referenced the seized marijuana. While the exclusionary rule equally applies to verbal statements, such testimony may be admitted if it is sufficiently attenuated from the illegal search. See United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 273-76, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978). We have already determined that O'Neill's testimony, which merely reiterated Stark's third confession, was sufficiently attenuated. Although Stark has failed to brief this issue with regard to Torres' testimony, it is clear that Torres' statement was not prejudicial, given that it merely corroborated Stark's own confession that Torres was involved in the conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error in admitting O'Neill's and Torres' statements regarding the marijuana.