Opinion ID: 857564
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Telephone and bank records

Text: Generally, business records are “by their nature [] not testimonial” hearsay. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56. We have held documents which are routinely recorded for a purpose other than preparation for a criminal trial are non-testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. See Caraballo, 595 F.3d at 1228-29 (holding 2 Although Raymond’s counsel objected twice on hearsay grounds during Livingston’s testimony regarding what individuals involved in drug activity said about the Florezes, Gabriel did not adopt those objections. 5 Case: 11-12232 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 6 of 28 an immigration form, used for “routine, objective cataloging of unambiguous biographical matters,” was not testimonial because it was primarily used to track the entry of aliens into the United States, and it was “of little moment that an incidental or secondary use of the interviews underlying the [] forms actually furthered a prosecution”). Because no objection was made to this testimony, the record is unclear as to why the court initially admitted the telephone and bank records testimony. See Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1288-89 (stating we will uphold the admission of testimony if it is admissible on other, non-stated grounds apparent from the record). However, the prosecutor did later rely on this evidence in his closing arguments as substantive evidence of Gabriel’s guilt, for the truth of the matter asserted, and the records were never introduced at trial. The records would have been admissible as an exception against hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)(B), but there is no hearsay exception for testimony about records not in evidence. Thus, it appears that an error that was plain occurred with respect to the admission of the challenged portions of Livingston’s testimony. However, based on the evidence supporting his conviction as detailed in Issue II below, the admission of this evidence did not affect Gabriel’s substantial rights. See Turner, 474 F.3d at 1276. Further, because telephone and business records are recorded for a purpose other 6 Case: 11-12232 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 7 of 28 than a criminal trial and are not testimonial, Livingston’s testimony regarding the contents of the records does not violate the Confrontation Clause. See Caraballo, 595 F.3d at 1228-29. C. Facts surrounding arrests of drug couriers in Texas and Ohio Gabriel did not object to this testimony, and thus it is reviewed for plain error. Similar to the telephone and bank records, Livingston’s testimony as to what law enforcement had told him regarding investigations into drug couriers was used for the truth of the matter asserted in the Government’s closing. Further, the Confrontation Clause may have been violated by Livingston’s testimony regarding what law enforcement told him about their investigation into the Texas and Ohio incidents because an objective witness would have reasonably considered the statements to be available at a later trial. See Baker, 432 F.3d at 1203. Assuming, arguendo, the statements Livingston testified to were testimonial, any error that occurred in admitting the evidence did not affect Gabriel’s substantial rights in light of the other evidence properly admitted at trial supporting his conspiracy conviction. See Turner, 474 F.3d at 1276.