United States v. Gerald Frank Plunk

161 F.3d 1195, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8613, 98 Daily Journal DAR 11939, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29963, 1998 WL 809556
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 24, 1998
Docket96-30363
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 161 F.3d 1195 (United States v. Gerald Frank Plunk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Gerald Frank Plunk, 161 F.3d 1195, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8613, 98 Daily Journal DAR 11939, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29963, 1998 WL 809556 (9th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

ORDER

Plunk’s Motion to Accept Late-Filed Petition, Motion for Order Effective Nunc Pro Tunc, and Motion to Accept Over-length Petition are GRANTED. Plunk’s Motion to Supplement the Record is DENIED.

The slip opinion filed August 28, 1998 [153 F.3d 1011], is amended as follows:

*1196 1. Slip op. at 9706, second full paragraph, fourth sentence [153 F.3d at 1022].

The sentence beginning “Plunk, however, did not object ____” is changed to read: “Plunk, however, did not object to the admission of Speziale’s identification testimony at trial.”

2. Slip op. at 9715, first full paragraph, fourth line [153 F.3d at 1026],

Replace the second half of the paragraph, from “Standing alone, however ....” to the end of page 9715, with: “Plunk, however, stipulated before trial to the use of transcripts that identified him as one of the speakers. He did not object to the use of his name until the jury asked during deliberations to listen to certain portions of the tapes and the court indicated that it would play the tapes for the jury in the courtroom and again provide them with transcripts. Only then did Plunk propose alternative transcripts that substituted neutral terms for the speakers’ names. The court reasonably rejected this request because a change in transcripts might mislead the jury. Instead, the court expressly advised the jury that the identification of speakers on the transcripts was not evidence of them identity. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Plunk’s request and permitting the jury to view the transcripts.

For the foregoing reasons, Plunk’s transcript-based challenge must fail.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing.

The suggestion for rehearing en banc will be dealt with in a separate order.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Johnson
Ninth Circuit, 2025
United States v. Hasston, Inc.
145 F. Supp. 3d 75 (District of Columbia, 2015)
State v. Clark
752 S.E.2d 907 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2013)
United States v. Berger
Ninth Circuit, 2007
United States v. Howard
104 F. App'x 116 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Green
97 F. App'x 745 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. McCoy
90 F. App'x 201 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Castellon
80 F. App'x 562 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Mendez
79 F. App'x 289 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Tafoya
72 F. App'x 675 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Lee
55 F. App'x 473 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Hermanek
289 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Isaia v. American Samoa Government
6 Am. Samoa 3d 3 (High Court of American Samoa, 2002)
Packer v. Hill
277 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Coleman
16 F. App'x 744 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Timothy James Whitehead
200 F.3d 634 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F.3d 1195, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8613, 98 Daily Journal DAR 11939, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29963, 1998 WL 809556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gerald-frank-plunk-ca9-1998.