Opinion ID: 195567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of the Certification of Denial

Text: 26 Under 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903, it is unlawful for anyone on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(a), to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Vessels subject to United States jurisdiction include vessels without nationality. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(1)(A). The indictment in this case alleged that jurisdiction existed because the defendants' vessel was a vessel without nationality within the meaning of 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(1)(A). 27 A vessel without nationality (also called a stateless vessel) includes a vessel aboard which the master or person in charge makes a claim of registry, which claim is denied by the flag nation whose registry is claimed. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(2)(A). A claim of registry can include a verbal claim of nationality or registry by the master or person in charge. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(3)(C). United States v. Maynard, 888 F.2d 918, 922-25 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Potes, 880 F.2d 1475, 1478-79 (1st Cir.1989). 28 There is no dispute in this case that a person in charge, namely defendant Forbes, made a claim of nationality by stating that the defendants' vessel was from Colombia. Since a claim of nationality was made, the vessel can be classified as stateless only if the claim is denied by the flag nation whose registry is claimed. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(2)(A). Maynard, 888 F.2d at 925. Section 1903(c)(2) provides that: 29 A claim of registry under subparagraph (A) may be verified or denied by radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means. The denial of such claim of registry by the claimed flag nation may be proved by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee. 30 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(2) (emphasis added). 31 To satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under Sec. 1903, the government presented a certification of denial from the State Department as proof that defendants' claim of registry was denied by Colombia. That certificate was signed by the Acting Secretary of State and stated: I Certify That Peter J. Boynton, whose name is subscribed to the document hereunto annexed, was at the time of subscribing the Maritime Law Enforcement Officer [at the State Department], and that full faith and credit should be given to his acts as such. The annexed statement by Boynton attested to the fact that Boynton had been designated by the Secretary of State to make certifications of denial pursuant to 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903. Boynton stated that on March 30, 1993, he contacted the Defense Attache of the United States Embassy in Colombia to obtain permission from Colombian officials to board defendants' vessel and to determine its nationality. Boynton then recounted the following series of events: The American Defense Attache obtained permission to board the vessel from an Admiral H.G. Ramirez, Commandant of the Colombian Navy. The Attache then related this to U.S. Coast Guard officials who authorized a boarding of the vessel and who subsequently determined that the vessel had no indicia of nationality. This information was relayed back to Colombian officials, and on March 31, 1993, Admiral Ramirez wrote a letter to the American Attache refuting the defendants' claim of Colombian registry. 1 Boynton did not have personal knowledge of any of these events; rather, he was informed of them as the events unfolded by various State Department and Coast Guard officials. The actual letter from Admiral Ramirez refuting defendants' claim of nationality was never presented at trial. 32 At issue on appeal is defendants' allegation that the State Department certificate was inadmissible because it included double and triple hearsay concerning the fact of Colombia's denial of registry of defendants' boat, and because the form of the certificate--with Boynton's annexed statement containing critical facts that were not within Boynton's personal knowledge--was inherently unreliable. 2 Defendants argue that Boynton had no personal knowledge of any of the relevant facts that may have occurred in Colombia with respect to the request for boarding the vessel or the Colombian government's reply to that request, including Colombia's refutation of the nationality of defendants' boat. Defendants conclude that the district court erred in admitting the Department of State certificate and that the government, therefore, failed to establish the element of jurisdiction under Sec. 1903. 33 The district court did not err in admitting the Department of State Certificate because there was no hearsay or other admissibility problem with that piece of evidence. Section 1903(c)(2) specifically provides that the denial of such a claim of registry by the claimed flag nation may be proved by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee. The statute was designed to ease evidentiary requirements for the government by avoiding the time-consuming and burdensome task of obtaining official documentation from the claimed country of registry which was previously required to prove jurisdiction over a stateless vessel. See United States v. Leuro-Rosas, 952 F.2d 616, 619-20 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1598, 118 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992). Thus, to establish jurisdiction in the case of a vessel claiming foreign registry, the government need not prove that the vessel is in fact without registry in another country, nor must it prove that the foreign nations' denial or refutation of registry is valid, legitimate, or otherwise properly made. In fact, such issues may be irrelevant for purposes of jurisdiction under Sec. 1903 once it is established that the State Department certifies the vessel is stateless. See 46 U.S.C.App. 1903(d) (A claim of failure to comply with international law in the enforcement of this chapter may be invoked solely by a foreign nation, and a failure to comply with international law shall not divest a court of jurisdiction or otherwise constitute a defense to any proceeding under this chapter); Leuro-Rosas, 952 F.2d at 621-22. 3 34 Jurisdiction exists under Sec. 1903 if the State Department determines a vessel is stateless through the receipt of a denial of registry from a foreign nation. Section 1903(c)(2) allows for proof of this determination by way of a certification of the Secretary or his or her designee. The presence of what might normally be considered hearsay in the certification is explicitly contemplated by the statute, which states that a claim of registry may be verified or denied by radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(c)(2). Congress recognized that the State Department would be using non-documentary, non-self-authenticating means of obtaining a denial and attesting to this fact in its certification. Thus, the statute specifically authorizes as proof of the jurisdictional component of Sec. 1903 precisely what the government presented here. The State Department certification recited with specificity the steps that resulted in the Department's understanding that the Government of Colombia had refuted the claim of Colombian registry for the un[n]amed vessel, by letter signed by ADM Ramirez, Commandant of the Colombian Navy. This is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. 35 There is no hearsay or other problem with the form of the certification in this case. The attachment of a declaration by Boynton to the Secretary of State's certification is perfectly acceptable because Boynton constitutes the Secretary's designee under Sec. 1903(c)(2). Several courts have accepted declarations attached to certificates as proper and admissible certifications under Sec. 1903. United States v. Aikins, 946 F.2d 608, 614 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Mena, 863 F.2d 1522, 1531 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834, 110 S.Ct. 109, 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989) (finding admissible a letter from Honduran Navy attached to certification from United States Embassy in Honduras); cf. Leuro-Rosas, 952 F.2d at 618-21 (expressing approval of certification under Sec. 1903 in the same form as the certification in this case). 36 Boynton's reliance on the actions and statements of other State Department officials in certifying Colombia's denial of registry does not raise admissibility problems under the hearsay rule. The State Department Certification falls squarely within Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A) which excepts from the hearsay rule public-agency statements in any form setting forth the activities of the office or agency. Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A); Mena, 863 F.2d at 1531. The State Department's declaration that it received a denial of defendants' claim of registry from Colombia was a statement by a public agency setting forth a routine activity of that agency. The hearsay exception under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A) accounts for all of the subsidiary statements relayed by the State Department operatives to the declarant, Boynton. See Aikins, 946 F.2d at 614-15 (noting that the authority of a certifying official who relies on the statements of functionaries for his information is not diluted, and the admissibility of his certificate is not diminished, because he indicated the basis for his statement; and stating that the Secretary of State could properly rely on those in his chain of command. A probability of trustworthiness attends the statement of the certifying officer; it is equally probable that the officer has taken reasonable measures to assure himself of the fact he certifies).