Opinion ID: 578042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foundation of the Western Union Documents.

Text: 7 A district court's decision regarding the admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Blackwood, 878 F.2d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir.1989) (sufficiency of authentication); United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 553 (9th Cir.1989) (admission of evidence, generally). 8 Two rules of evidence are pertinent to this appeal. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that the standard for admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. The government need only make a prima facie showing of authenticity so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification. Blackwood, 878 F.2d at 1202 (quoting United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1342 (9th Cir.); cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1022 (1985) (quoting 5 J. Weinstein & M. Merger, Weinstein's Evidence, p 901(a) at 901-16 to -17 (1983)). Once the government meets this burden, the probative force of the evidence is an issue for the jury. Id. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) permits the admission of a business record as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted if it was made at or about the time of the event by a person with knowledge and was made and kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. 9 The Appellant does not dispute that the documents admitted at trial were Western Union documents bearing the Appellant's name and driver's license imprint. The Appellant instead takes issue with the fact that the government provided no witnesses showing that he entered the Western Union offices and picked up the money transfers. He points out that the Western Union custodian of records testified that she had no direct knowledge of who actually had received the money transfers and that it was possible someone other than the Appellant could have obtained the money if he matched the description on the license. 10 Contrary to the Appellant's assertion, however, the fact that the government did not produce such a witness is not dispositive on the issue of authentication under Rule 901(a) nor does it disqualify an otherwise sufficient business record under Rule 803(6). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to link a defendant with documents purported to have been made or signed by him under both Rule 901(a), see, e.g., Blackwood, 878 F.2d at 1202 (testimony regarding IRS practises sufficient to show authenticity of tax records), Black, 767 F.2d at 1342 (fact that disputed evidence was found in Appellant's home is sufficient), and under Rule 803(6). United States v. Smith, 609 F.2d 1294, 1301 (9th Cir.1979) (eye witness testimony and corroboration of names and address signed by defendant sufficient). 11 We find that the government presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet its burden of showing a connection between the Appellant and the documents. As detailed above, the Western Union custodian of records testified that certain verification procedures are followed and identification required before the clerk is permitted to effectuate the money transfer. She also testified that the identification data on the exhibits matched that of the admitted photocopy of the Appellant's license. The government alleged six Western Union money transactions; the district court could have found that a clerk or clerks under orders to identify customers before transferring money would not have erred so many times in identification. Further, as described more fully below, the government presented testimony linking the Western Union money transfers to the conspiracy and the Appellant himself to a payment in furtherance of the conspiracy around the dates for which the government provided Western Union documents. 1 12 The Appellant also argues that the documents, even if properly authenticated business records, improperly were introduced for the purpose of proving his identification. He is mistaken. Once the business records were properly admitted under Rule 803(6), they could be used to prove that someone presented the Appellant's driver's license and received the money. The jury could infer from this that the Appellant was the person that did so. 13 Finally, the Appellant argues that the prejudicial effect of the Western Union documents substantially outweighed their probative effect, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. He contends that the use of the evidence to show that he was receiving thousands of dollars from an unexplained source, coupled with his tactical decision not to testify, improperly misled the jury. We disagree. The documents were highly probative of his link to the conspiracy. We find that the documents did not arouse the jury's feelings for one side without regard to the probative value of the evidence, United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1988), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the documents under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. 14