Opinion ID: 6112171
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fabricated Invoices

Text: Clark argues that the district court erroneously admitted fabricated invoices, which were submitted by him in a prior court filing, as evidence of his consciousness of guilt. Clark argues that the invoices were not sufficiently connected to him and, therefore, not probative of his state of mind. Prior to trial, Clark filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence from the Acer and Compaq computers that showed that child pornography existed on them as early as 2005. Clark attached to the motion an affidavit from Margaret Allen (his mother-in-law) and two invoices from a computer store. The attachments purported to show that Allen’s late husband purchased the computers in 2009 and 2012, respectively, and that Clark did not receive them until 2014. The district court denied the motion, however, after the government provided evidence that the invoices were fabricated. At trial, the district court allowed the government to admit the invoices and present testimony concerning their fabrication. The district court instructed the jury that if they believed that the invoices were fabricated, such evidence could be used to establish Clark’s consciousness of guilt. We review de novo the district court’s legal determination that the evidence was admissible for a proper Rule 404(b) purpose, and we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s Rule 403 determination. Rayborn, 495 F.3d at 342. Rule 404(b). Typically, evidence of a defendant’s consciousness of guilt is admitted under Rule 404(b) when he flees the scene, attempts to bribe or threatens adverse witnesses, tampers with evidence, or expresses his suicidal ideations. United States v. Cody, 498 F.3d 582, 591 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 598 (6th Cir. 2003); United States v. Munnerlyn, 202 F. App’x 91, 95 (6th Cir. 2006). Fabricating evidence is a form of tampering with evidence and the converse to spoliation of evidence. And as such, evidence of it is admissible to prove a defendant’s consciousness of guilt.11 United States v. Snyder, 789 F. App’x 501, 510–12 (6th Cir. 2019) (admitting evidence of defendant’s post-indictment loan agreement to show potential fabrication of evidence and, thus, defendant’s consciousness of 11 Clark asks the court to employ a four-part test to determine the admissibility of the evidence. But that test “has been limited to cases involving actual flight” and is therefore inapplicable to cases like this one involving fabrication of evidence. United States v. Hickman, 766 F. App’x 240, 253 (6th Cir. 2019) . No. 20-5722 United States v. Clark Page 17 guilt); see Copeland, 321 F.3d at 598 (“This court has held that evidence that has the tendency to demonstrate a defendant’s consciousness of wrongdoing is admissible to establish the defendant’s guilt.”). Clark’s fabricated invoices were admissible under Rule 404(b) to show his consciousness of guilt. Clark, through his attorney, filed the invoices as part of his motion in limine. See Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 90 (2009) (“[T]he attorney is the [defendant’s] agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation . . . .” (quotation omitted)). As presented, the invoices were exculpatory and supported Clark’s defense. Clark knew the true timing of his acquiring the computers, but he allowed the fabricated invoices to be used for his benefit. This sufficiently “indicates [Clark’s] consciousness that his case is a weak or unfounded one.” See United States v. Mendez-Ortiz, 810 F.2d 76, 79 (6th Cir. 1986) (quotation marks omitted). The district court did not err in finding that these invoices were attributable to Clark and admitting them to prove Clark’s consciousness of guilt. Rule 403. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion under Rule 403. Rule 403 excludes relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Clark’s reliance on illegitimate tactics is highly probative because it tended to establish his state of mind and disprove his defense that a third party was responsible for distributing child pornography. See United States v. Cordero, 973 F.3d 603, 620 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[C]ourts have observed that evidence tending to show consciousness of guilt frequently bears upon a defendant’s intent and knowledge.”). The invoices were not overly inflammatory and presented little danger of unfair prejudice in comparison to their “legitimate probative force.” United States v. Schrock, 855 F.2d 327, 335 (6th Cir. 1988). Any prejudice resulting from the invoices was limited by the court’s jury instruction, which clearly stated that the invoices “may not be used for any other purpose,” and which was drafted in a way that allowed “the jury [] to reach its own conclusion about the strength of the government’s fabrication theory.” Snyder, 789 F. App’x at 513; see also Cordero, 973 F.3d at 621 (“The trial court’s delivery of consistent, frequent, and accurate limiting instructions weighs against a finding of unfair prejudice.”). Therefore, the district court properly weighed the evidence’s probative value against its limited prejudicial effect and did not abuse its discretion. No. 20-5722 United States v. Clark Page 18