Opinion ID: 2680583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearsay and Authenticity

Text: White first argues the District Court erred in admitting certain sets of documents and records. We review a district court’s evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion, and will reverse only in instances of “manifest error.” United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682, 687-88 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a defendant fails to make an evidentiary objection at trial, our review is only for “plain error.”1 See United States v. Hourihan, 66 F.3d 458, 463 (2d Cir. 1995). White argues that there was an insufficient basis for the admissibility of certain tax returns because there was an absence of proof connecting White to the IP addresses associated with the electronic filings.2 On similar grounds, White contests the admission of other documents, such as financial records and airline records, among others. It is well settled that, “[w]ith respect to a document attributed to the defendant, the prosecution need only provide a rational basis from 1 Under this exacting standard, “an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error not raised at trial only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 White’s characterization of this objection as an authenticity objection is incorrect; it is an objection as to relevance under Fed. R. Evid. 104(b), which provides: “When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.” 2 which the jury could infer that the document did, in fact, belong to him.” United States v. MaldonadoRivera, 922 F.2d 934, 957 (2d Cir. 1990). After review, we conclude that there was adequate circumstantial evidence—stemming from when and how refund proceeds and other funds were withdrawn, transferred, and spent, among other evidence—for a juror to conclude that these documents belonged to White. We accordingly also reject White’s hearsay challenge to these documents, insofar as they are statements of an opposing party. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). White also contests the admissions of her own statements made to the IRS during its investigation. We review this claim for plain error due to a lack of objection at trial. White does not specifically identify which statements were purportedly inadmissible, nor does she precisely identify the objection that is being made. White simply asserts that the statements were “exculpatory” and thus inadmissible. This does not amount to a showing of error, much less plain error, particularly since many of White’s statements were not in fact exculpatory in any fashion.