for admissibility or that the offer of proof be timely, on the record, or stated with specificity. However, this rule has been applied differently in practice. “If in the trial court the offeror fails to specify any ground for admissibility, or specifies the wrong ground, he is trouble on appeal.” Charles Alan Wright and Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., 21 Federal Practice and Procedure § 5040 at 210 (1977). A failure to advance a ground for the admission of evidence relegates the offering party to plain error review on appeal. See id.; Fed.R.Evid. 103(d); see also United States v. Gambino, 926 F.2d 1355, 1363 n. 6 (3d Cir.1991) (noting that objecting to testimony on one ground does not preserve other grounds for objection on appeal); United States v. Field, 875 F.2d 130, 134 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). At trial, ILA’s sole argument for the
holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication holding that under rule 103a1 njeither a general objection to the evidence nor a specific objection on other grounds will preserve the issue on review holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court