Opinion ID: 4540108
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidentiary Authenticity Challenge

Text: Federal Rule of Evidence 901 governs the process of evidentiary authentication. It provides that “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” See United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147, 1150 n.1 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Jack B. Weinstein et. al., Weinstein’s Evidence Manual, ¶ 901(a) [01], at 901–19 (5th ed. 1996)) (“The [authentication] rule requires only that the court admit evidence if sufficient No. 19-3092 United States v. Dunnican Page 11 proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification. The rest is up to the jury.”)). “This task can be accomplished in a number of ways—with testimony from someone with knowledge of the evidence offered, for example, or by pointing to distinctive characteristics that establish authenticity.” Farrad, 895 F.3d at 876; see Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1), (4). “Some items, however, ‘are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted.’” Farrad, 895 F.3d at 876 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 902). One category of self-authenticating evidence is “[d]ata copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12).” Fed. R. Evid. 902(14). As explained by the Advisory Committee in 2017, there are critical convenience and efficiency objectives linked to the application of Rule 902(14): [T]he expense and inconvenience of producing an authenticating witness for this evidence is often unnecessary. It is often the case that a party goes to the expense of producing an authentication witness, and then the adversary either stipulates authenticity before the witness is called or fails to challenge the authentication testimony once it is presented. Fed. R. Evid. 902, 2017 Advisory Committee notes. The Committee also notes that the amendment was intended to “provide[] a procedure in which the parties can determine in advance of trial whether a real challenge to authenticity will be made, and can then plan accordingly.” Id. The government adhered to these authentication procedures. In compliance with Rules 902(11) and 902(14), the government filed a notice of its intent to use a certification method on September 17, 2018. This certification was signed by ATF Special Agent Joshua Snyder, who performed the digital extraction. Snyder certified the reliability and verifiability of the extraction, which he explained, involved the use of a digital fingerprint generated by special software. Dunnican did not object to this method of self-authentication either during the final pretrial proceedings or at the trial.8 Regardless though, because we determine that the 8 Dunnican actually requested that the district court admit the entire extraction report—a document of several thousand pages in length—as opposed to summaries of such. The government argues that by virtue of this No. 19-3092 United States v. Dunnican Page 12 stipulations of Rule 902 have been met and the evidence was properly authenticated, we conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting it.