Opinion ID: 487126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: authentication of evidence

Text: 39 At trial, the government attempted to put into evidence a plastic bag containing a straw, razor blade, piece of paper that read 13 POW/ROCK 15, and a nine of hearts playing card, each of which agents Boeri and Reilly purportedly found on Masse's body at the time of his arrest. Masse objected, claiming that the government failed to satisfy Fed.R.Evid. 901(a)'s authentication requirement. 10 In particular, he pointed to the trial testimony of Boeri and Reilly in which the agents could not recall which of them had taken the items or their location on Masse's body. The district court denied Masse's objection, a decision we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 24 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Sorrentino, 726 F.2d 876, 886 (1st Cir.1984). 40 Here, given the agents' testimony that (1) the items were discovered as a result of their search of Masse; (2) the objects were in substantially the same condition as they were on November 7, 1984, the day of the arrest; and (3) they followed standard procedure in performing the search and placing the seized goods in a plastic bag, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Masse's objection. See, e.g., United States v. Mendel, 746 F.2d 155, 167 (2d Cir.1984) (the prosecution need only prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the exhibit did, in fact, belong to the appellants), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1213, 105 S.Ct. 1184, 84 L.Ed.2d 331 (1985); United States v. Luna, 585 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.) ([t]he trial judge [is] entitled to rely on a presumption of official regularity), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 852, 99 S.Ct. 160, 58 L.Ed.2d 157 (1978). In the words of Fed.R.Evid. 901(a), the court could fairly presume that the matter in question [was] what its proponent claim[ed] it to be. 41