### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 10, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12230 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 2 0 - C R - 1 - S P M- AK U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E R I C D U N C A N , a .k .a . B e a s tie , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 10, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E ri c D un ca n app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence i m po se d aft era j ury conv i ct ed hi m of on e c ou ntof kn ow i ng l y and fa l se l y m aki ng a f al se m at er i al de c l a r a t i on w hi l e unde roa th, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1623( a ) . H i s i ndi c tm e nt a r o s e a s ar e s u lt o f

te s tim o n y h e g a v e d u r in g h is p r io rtr ia l o n d ru g c h a r g e s . D unc a n a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n: ( 1) a dm i tt i ng i nt o e vi de nc e r e c or di ngs of h is te le p h o n e c a lls m a d e w h ile h e w a s in ja il, b e c au s e th e tap e s w e r e n o t p r o p e r ly authe nt i c a t e d, pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 901( a ) ; ( 2) de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l unde rF e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 29 be c aus e the G ov ernm entdi d n otpres entsuff i ci entevi dence for the j ury t o con cl ud e he had know i ngl y a nd f

a l s e l y m a de af

a l s e m a t e r i a l de c l a r a t i on w hi l e unde roa th; a nd ( 3) de c l i ni ng t o gr a nthi m atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on i n hi s s e nt e nc e f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s i b i l i ty . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o te rr , an d w e a f f i rm. I . DI S C US S I ON A . A dm is s i on of

r e c ordi ngs W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o a dm i te vi de nc e f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . U

n ite d S ta te s v . C o le , 755 F . 2d 748, 766 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( r e vi e w i ng a d m is s io n o f

av id e o r e c o r d in g ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s “b r o a d d is c r e tio n inIn Bo nn er v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this Court 1 adopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all de c isi ons of th e former F if th C ircuit ha nde d down p ri or

to c los e of business on September 30, 1981. 3 det erm i ni ng w hether t o al l ow a r ec ordi ng t o b e pl ay ed before the j ury. ” I d. ( c i t i ng U ni te d State s v . B i

ggi ns , 55 1 F . 2d 64 (5th C i r. 19 77 )) . 1 I n B i ggi ns , w e he l d i n or de rt o i ntr oduc e avi de ot ape a ttr i a l , the gove rnm e nt m us te s t abl i s h the r e c or di ng “ i s a n a c c ur a t e r e pr oduc t i on of r e l e va nts ounds pr e vi ous l y audi t e d by aw i tne s s . ” 551 F . 2d a t66. T he gove rnm e ntc a rr i e s the bur de n of

e s t abl i s hi ng: ( 1) the c om pe t e nc y of the ope r a t or ; ( 2) the f

i de l i ty of the r e c or di ng e qui pm e nt ; ( 3) the abs e nc e of m a t e r i a l de l e t i ons , a ddi t i ons , ora l t e r a t i ons i n the r e l e va ntpor t i ons of the r e c or di ng; a nd ( 4) the i de nt i f i c a t i on of

the r e l e va nt s p e a k e r s . I

d. H ow e ve r , w e l a t e re xpl a i ne d “ [ w ] he r e the r e i s s uf f i c i e nti nde pe nde nt e v id e n c e o f

th e a c c u r a c y o f

th e tap e r e c o r d in g s to in s u r e th e irr e liab ility , w e w ill no tdi sturb the tri al court ’ s dec i si on t o adm i tthem even tho ug h atthe t i m e that j ud gm entw as m ade the go vernm enthad n otca rr i ed i t s part i cul ar i ze d b urden. ” U ni ted Stat es v. H

ug hes , 6 5 8 F .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) . A s pe a ke r ’ s voi c e m a y be i de nt i f i e d by opi ni on t e s t i m ony “ ba s e d upon hear i ng the vo i ce atany t i m e und erci rc um st ance s c on nect i ng i tw i th the al l eged spea ker. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 90 1(b)(5). “ O nce aw i tness es t abl i shes fa m i l i ar i ty w i th an i de nt i f i e d voi c e , i ti s up t o the j ury t o de t e rm i ne the w e i ghtt o pl a c e on the4

w i tness ’ s voi ce i dent i fi ca t i on . ” B r ow n v . C i t y of Hi ale ah , 30 F . 3d 1433, 1437 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . E v id e n c e is p r o p e r ly au th e n tic a te dw h e n th e r e is “e v id e n c e s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r taf

i n d i n g th a tth e ma tt e ri n q u e s t i o n i s w h a ti t s p r o p o n e n tc l a i ms . ” Fe d . R. E vi d. 901( a ) . W e ha ve he l d authe nt i c a t i on unde rR ul e 901 r e qui r e s the pres ent at i on of suff

i ci entevi dence t o m ake outa p r im a fa c ie ca se the proffer ed evi dence i s w hati tpu rport s t o b e, and o nce a p r im a fa c ie show i ng has bee n m ade, the e vi de nc e s houl d be a dm i tt e d a nd the tr i e rof f a c tpe rm i tt e d t o de t e rm i ne w h e th e rth e p r o f

f e r e d e v id e n c e is w h a t it p u rp o r ts to b e . U n ite d S ta te s v . C a ldw e ll , 7 7 6 F .2 d 9 8 9 , 1 0 0 1 - 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( c ita tio n an d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . H ere, th e t ap e reco rd i n g s o f th e t el ep h o n e cal l s w ere ad m i ssi b l e b ecau se the r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor taf i ndi ng the r e c or di ngs w e r e w ha tthe G o v e rn m e n t p u rp o r te d th e m to b e . See F e d . R . E v id . 9 0 1 ( a ) . T h e r e c o r d r e f le c ts the G ove rnm e ntm a y notha ve m e ti t s bur de n t o e s t abl i s h: ( 1) the c om pe t e nc y of H e rnbe r ge r , the ope r a t orof the r e c or di ng s y s t e m ; ( 2) the f i de l i ty of the r e c or di ng e qui pm e nt ; ( 3) the abs e nc e of m a t e r i a l de l e t i ons , a ddi t i ons , ora l t e r a t i ons i n the r e l e va ntpor t i ons of

the r e c or di ng; a nd ( 4) the i de nt i f i c a t i on of

the r e l e va nt s p e a k e r s . See B i

ggi ns , 5 5 1 F .2 d a t 6 6 .5

H ow ever , A gentT i m othy D urst , w ho w as fa m i l i arw i th D un ca n’ s voi ce b as ed o n h is in terv iew s w ith D u n ca n d u rin g th e in v es ti g atio n , i d en ti fied D u n ca n ’s v o ice o n th e tap e r ec o rd in g s a n d v er ified th e c alls w er e p lace d to D u n ca n ’s w ife’s n u m b e rw h ile D u n c a n w a s in ja il. See F ed. R . E vi d. 90 1(b)(5). M oreover, H ernb er ger t es t i fi ed i tw as i m po ss i bl e t o al t erthe re cordi ng s, and i n the three ye ar s th e j ai l h ad b een u si n g th e syst em , i th ad n o tb een fo u n d t o b e i n accu rat e. B ecau se the t e s t i m ony of

the s e w i tne s s e s c ons t i tut e d c om pe t e nte vi de nc e s uppor t i ng the d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e t e rm i n a t i o n o f au th e n t i c i ty a s t o th e au d i o t ap e s a ti s s u e , we c o n c lu d e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g th e r e c o r d in g s . B . Su f f i ci encyof

the ev i dence W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

oraj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l de n o v o , v ie w in g th e f

a c ts a n d d r a w in g a ll in f e r e n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t. U

ni te d State s v . D e s c e nt , 2 9 2 F. 3 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . To a f f irm “th e d e n ia l o f

aR u le 2 9 m o tio n , w e n e e d o n ly d e te rm in e th a t ar e a s o n ab le f a c t- f in d e rc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d. ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ I ti s not ne c e s s a ry tha tthe e vi de nc e e xc l ude e ve ry r e a s onabl e hypothe s i s of i nnoc e nc e or be w hol l y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th e ve ry c onc l us i on e xc e pttha tof gui l t , pr ovi de d a r e a s onabl e tr i e rof

f a c tc oul d f

i nd tha tthe e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d gui l tbe y ond a6

re as on abl e dou bt . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. Mi les , 29 0 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 55 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). W e a c c e p t a ll o f

aju ry ’s in f

e r e n c e s a n d d e te rm in a tio n s o f w itn e s s c r e d ib ility . See U ni te d State s v . G l i nton , 1 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . T o p ro v e fal se d ecl arat i o n s b efo re a j u ry o r co u rt , th e g o v ern m en tm u st sh o w th e d efen d an t(1 ) w h i l e u n d er o ath i n a p ro ceed i n g b efo re a co u rto r j u ry, ( 2) know i ngl y , ( 3) m a de af a l s e , m a t e r i a l de c l a r a t i on. 18 U . S . C . § 1623( a ) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s e xpl a i ne d a n a ns w e rtha ti s non- r e s pons i ve , f a l s e by im p lic a tio n , o rs u b

je c t to c o n f

lic tin g in te rp r e ta tio n s , if lite r a lly tru e , is n o t p e r

ju ry . B ronston v. U

ni ted Stat es , 93 S . C t . 595, 601 ( 1973) . I n ape r j ury tr i a l , w he n a de f e nda ntc l a i m s hi s pr i ort e s t i m ony w a s “ l i t e r a l l y true , ” w e r e vi e w the c l a i m de n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o b e r ts , 3 0 8 F .3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A r e a s onabl e f

a c t - f i nde rc oul d c onc l ude the e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t D u n c a n m a d e af a ls e d e c la r a tio n in h is p r io rtr ia l. I n h is pr i ortr i a l , D unc a n c l e a r l y a nd une qui voc a l l y a dm i tt e d l e a s i ng the hous e on 22nd S tr e e t f r o m 1 9 9 8 th r o u g h 1 9 9 9 , b u t d e n ie d le a s in g th e h o u s e a t a n y o th e rtim e . C ontr a ry t o D unc a n’ s a s s e r t i on on appe a l , ar e vi e w of the e nt i r e ty of

hi s t e s t i m ony doe s notr e ve a l tha the c l a r i f i e d thi s t e s t i m ony ors ubs e que nt l y a dm i tt e d l e a s i ng the p r o p e r ty o n b e h a lf

o f h is b r o th e r .7

M o reo v er, t est i m o n y fro m th e p ro p erty o w n er, R o b ertM ax W i l l o ck s, d e m o n s tr a te d D u n c a n h a d , in f a c t, s ig n e d le a s e s f

o rth e h o u s e o n 2 2 n d S tr e e t in 2000, 2001, a nd 2002. A n e m pl oy e e w i th the ut i l i ty c om pa ny c onf i rm e d the u tilitie s a c c o u n t f

o rth e r e s id e n c e w a s in D u n c a n ’s n a m e th r o u g h 2 0 0 3 . F u r th e rm o r e , ad e te c tiv e f r o m th e G a in e s v ille P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t te s tif ie d th a t, w he n D unc a n r e por t e d va nda l i s m t o hi s c a ri n S e pt e m be r2000, he l i s t e d the ad d re ss as h is h o m e a d d re ss o n th e p o li ce p ap er w o rk . F in ally, A g en t D u rs t’ s t e s t i m ony e s t abl i s he d tha t , be c aus e the hous e w a s s us pe c t e d t o be as i t e of na r c ot i c s tr a ns a c t i ons , D unc a n’ s r e l a t i ons hi p t o the hous e w a s m a t e r i a l dur i ng the f ir s t tr ia l. B ec ause a r ea sonabl e f

ac t -f i nd ercoul d con cl ud e thi s e vi dence es t abl i shed be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubttha tD unc a n ha d, ( 1) w hi l e unde roa th i n apr oc e e di ng b e f o r e ac o u r t o rju ry , ( 2 ) k n o w in g ly , ( 3 ) m a d e f a ls e , m a te r ia l d e c la r a tio n s , in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 2 3 (a ), th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin d en yin g D u n ca n ’s m o tio n f o raju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. C . A c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty f

or c le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. A m edeo , 3 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 2 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tade f e nda nti s note nt i t l e d t o a c c e pt a nc e of8

resp o n si b i l i ty w i l l n o tb e setasi d e u n l ess th e fact s i n th e reco rd cl earl y est ab l i sh thata def

endanthas a cc ept ed pers on al re spon si bi l i ty. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Sa w

ye r , 1 8 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . “T h e d e f e n d an t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f c le a r ly dem on stra t i ng ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty . . . . ” I d. “I f th e d e f e n d a n t c le a r ly d e m o n s tr a te s a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility f

o rh is offe nse, decr ea se the offens e l evel by 2 l evel s. ” U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) . H ow ever , the a dj us tm e nti s noti nt e nde d t o appl y t o ade f e nda ntw ho put s the g o v e rn m e n t to its b u r d e n o f p r o o f a t tr ia l . . . is c o n v ic te d , a n d o n ly th e n a d m its g u ilt . . . . I n r a r e s itu a tio n s ad e f e n d a n t m a y c le a r ly dem on stra t e a n acc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty f or hi s c ri m i nal cond uct even tho ug h h e e xerc i se s hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o a tri al . T hi s m ay occur . . . w here a def

endantgo es t o tri al t o ass ertand p re se rve i ss ues thatdo no tre l at e t o fac tual gu i l t. . . . [H ] ow ever , a det erm i nat i on that ade f e nda ntha s a c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i ty w i l l be ba s e d pr i m a r i l y upon p r e - tr ia l s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t. I d. atcom m ent . (n. 2). M oreover, “ [t ] he t i m el i ness of the defendant ’ s a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty i s aconsi dera t i on . . . and i s c on t extspec i fi c. ” I d. a tc om m e nt . ( n. 6) . A n a dm i s s i on a l one doe s notne c e s s a r i l y a m ountt o a n a c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ility . See U

ni ted Stat es v. Sh ores , 9 6 6 F .2 d 1 3 8 3 , 1 3 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . D u n c a n d id n o t m e e t h is b u r d e n to s h o w h e a c c e p te d p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s ib ility a s to h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e o f f e n s e c o n d u c t, a n d , a c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id notc l e a r l y e rri n de c l i ni ng t o gr a ntthe r e duc t i on unde r§ 3E 1. 1. A s the9

com m ent ary t o § 3E 1. 1 exp l ai ns, the adj ustm enti s noti nt ended t o b e app l i ed w hen ade f e nda ntput s the gove rnm e ntt o i t s bur de n of pr oof a ttr i a l , i s c onvi c t e d, a nd o n ly th e n a d m its g u ilt. See § 3E 1. 1 c om m e nt . ( n. 2) . A l though ar e duc t i on m a y be w a rr a n te d e v e n a f

te rad e f e n d a n t e le c ts to g o to tr ia l, D u n c a n d id n o t e le c t to g o to tri al as t o C ou nt1 i n o rdert o ass ertand p re se rve i ss ues notre l at i ng t o h i s f ac tual g u ilt. See i d. F i na l l y , D unc a n’ s a dm i s s i ons t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r i ng the P S I th a t h e h a d , in f

a c t, le a s e d th e p r o p e r ty o n b e h a lf o f h is b r o th e rd o e s n o t e n title hi m t o the r e duc t i on, be c aus e the c om m e nt a ry t o § 3E 1. 1 i ns truc t s tha tthe det erm i nat i on of w hether adefe nd antac ce pt ed re spon si bi l i ty s ho ul d b e bas ed p r im a r ily o n th e d e f

e n d a n t’s p r e - tr ia l s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t. See i d. A s D un ca n po i nt s t o n o o ther e vi dence i nd i ca t i ng he dese rved the re du ct i on , the di stri ctcourt d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin d e c lin in g to g r a n t th e r e d u c tio n . I I . C ON C L US I ON T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng the t ape r e c or di ngs i nt o e vi de nc e . A ddi t i ona l l y , the r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ury t o f

i nd D u n c a n g u ilty o f

p e r ju ry , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin d e c lin in g to r e d u c e Du n c a n ’ s s e n t e n c e f o ra n a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i ty . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we af fi rm D un ca n’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . AF F I R ME D.