Court Opinion

ID: 9416196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:31:00.641141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:14.975484
License: Public Domain

QUIST, District Judge,
concurring:
I respectfully suggest that the better practice in this case would have been for the district court to have given an instruction as to the limited purpose of Detective Wharton’s testimony regarding Jisklifs statement about Jiminez’s involvement in the grow operation, i.e., Jisklifs statement could only be considered to show what was said and its effect upon Jiminez, and not that Jisklifs statement was true. Even though learned judges on appeal might figure out a rationale for the admissibility of evidence introduced for a limited purpose, there is no assurance, and much doubt, that a typical jury, on its own, would recognize the limited nature of the evidence. In any event, I believe that any error in this case would be harmless and not amount to plain error. See, United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1289-92 (11th Cir.2006).