Opinion ID: 149873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trustworthiness

Text: Kaiser also argues that Redgate's planners were not sufficiently trustworthy to serve the purpose of the business records exception due to a discrepancy between Redgate's testimony on direct and redirect examination. Kaiser's theory at trial was that Redgate had time and opportunity to alter the planners before turning them over to his attorney. He argued that Redgate's inconsistent testimony supports this theory. On direct examination, Redgate testified that he turned over most of the pages from his Contact Logs to his attorney on February 13, 2003the day after he learned that the fraud had unraveled and Lee had tendered his resignation to USFand his attorney had told him his problems were significantly greater than worrying about owing money, and ... these were important records, and that he should hold on to them. The attorney took everything except [o]ne page of the contact log that had 2002 stuff on it and two conversations, I believe, in 2003 that they overlooked. The missing page includes notes from December 27, 2002 through January 14, 2003. At first, Kaiser testified that it was not turned over to his lawyer because it was in his current planner at the time he met with his lawyer on February 13, 2003. The missing page was later turned over to the government, at the earliest in May 2003. On cross examination, Kaiser's counsel pointed out there were three subsequent pages of the planner with entries spanning from January 20, 2003 to March 2, 2003. Because the last page had entries after February 13, 2003, the date on which Redgate met with his attorney, it could not have been turned over at that time. Redgate responded, Evidently he didn't take it. On redirect, Redgate changed his testimony. He claimed that the only page not received by his lawyer on February 13, 2003 was not the page he had mentioned on direct examination, containing the entries that spanned 2002 and 2003, but rather, was the last page of the notes, covering the period from February 6, 2003 to March 2, 2003. Kaiser has succeeded in raising questions about the trustworthiness of the planners, but he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the they were sufficiently trustworthy under Rule 803(6). The district court was entitled to rely on Redgate's testimony on redirect to making its evidentiary decision. Reyes, 157 F.3d at 953. Residual doubts on the question [of trustworthiness] would go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Id. We further observe that the degree of reliability necessary for admission is greatly reduced where, as here, the declarant is testifying and is available for cross-examination, thereby satisfying the central concern of the hearsay rule. See United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1350-51 (7th Cir.1979). We cannot say, therefore, that the district court's reliance on Redgate's testimony was in error.