Opinion ID: 3066075
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Receipts

Text: In 2004, Seda turned over a number of records to the government, including four receipts. Seda claimed that two of those receipts recorded his transfer of the El-Fiki donation to Al-Buthe (termed AHIF-2 and AHIF-3) and the other two receipts recorded Al-Buthe’s transfer of the donation to AlHaramain in Riyadh (rejected defense exhibits 704 and 705). Seda was unable to authenticate any of these four exhibits. 56 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY The district court properly excluded exhibits 704 and 705 because they were unauthenticated. Fed. R. Evid. 901; Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[a]uthentication is a condition precedent to admissibility”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At trial, the government introduced the other receipts—AHIF-2 and AHIF-3—through multiple witnesses, not for their substance, but so it could argue the receipts were fabricated. The district court’s admission of these exhibits “not for their truth” but to corroborate the fabrication theory, was not an abuse of discretion nor did it deprive Seda of a fair trial. The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence offered “to establish a foundation for later showing, through other admissible evidence, that it was false.” See United States v. Knigge, 832 F.2d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 220 (1974)). Contrary to Seda’s assertion, the limited admission of these receipts did not preclude him from arguing his theory to the jury.