Opinion ID: 222568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Langford's SEC Testimony

Text: Finally, Langford argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit portions of Langford's testimony to the Securities and Exchange Commission, while allowing other parts of his SEC testimony to be read to the jury. Langford had been deposed in 2007 by the SEC during an investigation of bond transactions in Jefferson County. The government introduced portions of Langford's testimony concerning how LaPierre had given the defendant what he termed two loans, how he had traveled to New York for Jefferson County and went shopping with Blount but made his own purchases, how he and Blount had exchanged gifts but Langford purportedly had given Blount more than Blount had ever given Langford, and how the Jefferson County Commissioners were each allowed to choose whichever investment firms they thought should be involved in Jefferson County's financial transactions. Langford then sought to introduce other parts of his SEC testimony. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 106: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed.R.Evid. 106. Once a part of a document can be said to have been introduced, Rule 106 does not automatically make the entire document admissible. United States v. Pendas-Martinez, 845 F.2d 938, 944 (11th Cir.1988). Rather, the rule permits introduction only of additional material that is relevant and is necessary to qualify, explain, or place into context the portion already introduced. Id. As the record shows, the district court carefully examined all of the proffered SEC testimony with Langford's defense counsel, line by line, to determine if additional material was necessary to qualify, explain, or place into context the portion already introduced. Id. It determined that none of the additional testimony Langford sought to introduce satisfied this burden. In his brief to this Court, Langford generally says that he wanted to introduce still other portions of his SEC testimony because they bore on his intent, and explained how he had a property interest that he intended to sell to pay off the LaPierre loans. Moreover, he claimed, the proffered testimony showed that he never talked to Blount about the LaPierre loans, and that he was unaware of any discussions between Blount and LaPierre regarding the loans or of any money Blount gave to LaPierre, and explained why he did not report the loans on his ethics reports. The testimony also would have explained why Blount was chosen as a financial consultant, and why the New York trips were necessary. Langford has not identified for this Court, however, which specific portions of his SEC testimony he sought to introduce, nor has he explained how the additional testimony was necessary. To the extent Langford suggests that we can find explanations in the trial court record, we have rejected the practice of incorporating by reference arguments made to district courts. Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr S.A., 377 F.3d 1164, 1167 n. 4 (11th Cir.2004). At a minimum, he was obliged to cite us to the specific portions of SEC testimony he sought to introduce, and to explain in particular how each piece was relevant. See id.; see also NLRB v. McClain of Georgia, Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir.1998) (Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be waived.). But even if we were to undertake our own review of Langford's entire SEC testimony, we cannot discern how the omitted excerpts were necessary. Indeed, the testimony introduced already discussed the property interest he intended to use to repay the loans, explained why he chose Blount-Parrish for Jefferson County's transactions, and relayed why he went on the New York trips. Moreover, the testimony admitted did not mention Blount's role in orchestrating LaPierre's loans, nor whether Langford thought anyone besides LaPierre was behind the loans. Nor, finally, did the admitted portions say anything about whether Langford had reported the loans on his ethics reports. In short, even if we were hunt through all of the SEC testimony ourselves, he still has not shown how the proffered testimony was necessary to qualify, explain, or place into context the portion already introduced. Pendas-Martinez, 845 F.2d at 944. We see no abuse of discretion here either.