IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

YANJUN XU 

(a/k/a Xu Yanjun and Qu Hui) 

Case No. 1:18-CR-0043 

Judge Timothy S. Black 

UNITED STATES’ MOTION 

TO PUBLISH EXIBITS 

 ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE 

 The United States respectively moves this Court for permission to publish to the jury exhibits 

that have previously admitted into evidence. During trial the Court admitted the following 

exhibits: 86(c), 86(d), 93(b), 96(a), and 97(b). These exhibits consist of statements by the 

Defendant. 

 The government respectfully requests permission to call an FBI agent, and have that 

agent read the communications with trial counsel.1 The agent will not testify about any factual 

matters related to the exhibits, but would merely read the exhibit, which already has been 

admitted into evidence. Such practice has been affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. For example, in 

United States v. Tragas, 727 F.3d 610, 614 (6th Cir. 2013), the Sixth Circuit explained: 

“However, Defendant offers no support for her proposition that the mere reading aloud of 

previously admitted documentary evidence is improper or prejudicial. On the contrary, there is 

nothing inherently problematic about reading such evidence to the jury.” Id. (emphasis added), 

citing Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 262–63, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 

228 (1988) (no prejudice where two IRS agents read in tandem from a transcript before a grand 

1

 The government also could recall an agent who has previously testified, such as S.A. Hull. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 160 Filed: 10/26/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 1971
2 

jury); United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438, 456–57 (6th Cir. 2006) (no unfair prejudice 

where a police officer read portions of a previously-admitted diary to the jury). 

As stated in Tragas, “[a]s long as the evidence itself is properly admitted pursuant to the 

Rules of Evidence and does not run afoul of other safeguards like the Confrontation Clause, we 

do not see how a defendant could be prejudiced if the evidence is read aloud to the jury.” Id.; 

United States v. Evans Landscaping, Inc., 850 F. App’x 942 (6th Cir. 2021) (affirming 

conviction; rejecting defendant’s argument that agent was impermissibly used as a summary 

witness where he merely read from properly admitted exhibits). 

For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests permission to publish 

admitted exhibits: 86(c), 86(d), 93(b), 96(a), and 97(b) as stated above. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 VIPAL J. PATEL 

 Acting United States Attorney 

s/Timothy S. Mangan 

 TIMOTHY S. MANGAN (0069287) 

 EMILY GLATFELTER 

Assistant United States Attorney 

 221 East Fourth Street, Suite 400 

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

 Office: (513) 684-3711 

 E-mail: timothy.mangan@usdoj.gov 

 

 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 160 Filed: 10/26/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 1972
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically served via electronic 

mail upon defense counsel, this 26th day of October, 2021. 

s/Timothy S. Mangan 

 TIMOTHY S. MANGAN (0069287) 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 160 Filed: 10/26/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 1973