Opinion ID: 736921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: authentication through lay witness testimony

Text: 6 Appellant asserts that the district court erred by allowing into evidence the card allegedly written by Jones to Cronin because it had not been properly authenticated. According to her, because Cronin was a non-expert who was unfamiliar with Jones's handwriting, he could not testify regarding the genuineness of the card. Whether a document has been properly authenticated is a preliminary determination to be made by the district court. See United States v. Carriger, 592 F.2d 312, 316 (6th Cir.1979); Fed.R.Evid. 901(a) advisory committee's note. In reviewing a ruling by the district court regarding the authenticity of a document, we will affirm that ruling unless the district court abused its discretion. United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 957 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211, 111 S.Ct. 2811, 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991), and cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1233, 111 S.Ct. 2858, 115 L.Ed.2d 1025, 1026 (1991). 7 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), [t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Rule 901(b) in turn lists the following examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: 8 (2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation. 9 .... 10 (4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. 11 It is clear that Rule 901(b)(2) does not apply, because Cronin himself admitted that he was not familiar with Jones's handwriting. J.A. at 162. Appellee argues, however, and we are convinced, that Rule 901(b)(4) applies. [A] document ... may be shown to have emanated from a particular person by virtue of its disclosing knowledge of facts known peculiarly to him.... Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(4) advisory committee's note. In Maldonado-Rivera, the Second Circuit stated: 12 In accordance with Rule 901(b)(4), the contents of a writing may be used to aid in determining the identity of the declarant, United States v. Wilson, 532 F.2d 641, 644 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 846, 97 S.Ct. 128, 50 L.Ed.2d 117 (1976), if, for example, the writing deal[s] with a matter sufficiently obscure or particularly within the knowledge of the persons corresponding so that the contents of the [writing] were not a matter of common knowledge[.] 5 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence, p 901(b)(4), at 901-49 (1990). 13 922 F.2d at 957. See also United States v. Newton, 891 F.2d 944, 947 (1st Cir.1989) (concluding that a document which contained statements from which it could be inferred that [the defendant] authored the document was properly authenticated). In the present case, Cronin expressed the opinion that the card was written by Jones because the card was signed Kathie Jones and because the card contained references to Cronin's daughter-in-law and granddaughter that no one else could have written. J.A. at 160-61. In light of this testimony, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the card allegedly written by Jones to Cronin met the authentication requirements in Rule 901. 1