Opinion ID: 160816
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CCA Photograph

Text: As indicated above, the CCA Photograph shows Defendant in the middle of six other people, all of whom are dressed in prison garb and at least one of whom was identified as a drug offender by Ron Espy. The handwritten caption reads “I keep a Firm no matter where I’m at, baby.” Defendant raises two claims of error as to the admission of the CCA Photograph. First, he contends that the handwritten caption on the CCA Photograph was not properly authenticated and should not have been admitted. At trial, Espy, a lay witness with respect to handwriting analysis, testified that the handwritten caption appeared to match the handwriting in Defendant’s -12- letters to Moore. A lay witness may opine as to the genuineness of handwriting if that opinion is based on a familiarity with the handwriting that was acquired other than for purposes of the litigation. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(2). There is nothing in the record indicating that Espy was familiar with Defendant’s handwriting outside of his preparation for the instant case; thus Espy’s purported authentication is questionable under Rule 901(b)(2). However, the rules provide for other means of authentication. The “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances,” can be used to authenticate the handwritten caption. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). Authentication under Rule 901(b)(4) is proper if the appearance, contents, distinctive characteristics and circumstances of discovery of the CCA Photograph “support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” United States v. Gutierrez, 576 F.2d 269, 275 (10th Cir. 1978). The evidence supporting a finding that the handwritten caption was a statement of Defendant includes the following: (1) Defendant is prominently depicted in the CCA Photograph; (2) the caption referred to “The Firm,” a term three government witnesses said was used by Defendant as a name for his drug distribution organization; (3) the CCA Photograph was found in a letter from Defendant to Natasha Moore, his girlfriend; and (4) the CCA Photograph was -13- discovered in the master bedroom of Moore’s home along with other letters from Defendant to Moore. These facts provided the district court with an adequate basis for finding that the caption was what the government claimed it to be–a statement written by Defendant. As a result, admission was proper under Rule 901(b)(4). Defendant also challenges the admission of the CCA Photograph under Fed. R. Evid. 403, claiming that a picture depicting him in prison garb was highly prejudicial and that the probativeness of the reference in the caption to “The Firm” was slight since three witnesses had already testified as to its existence. We agree that showing the jury a picture of a defendant in prison clothing may be highly prejudicial in some cases. But, any prejudice to Defendant in this case was mitigated by the fact that the jury was fully aware from other evidence that Defendant was incarcerated prior to his trial. Moreover, the CCA Photograph was highly probative. The caption’s reference to “The Firm” corroborated the disputed testimony of three key government witnesses. Because a sufficient basis for authenticating the handwritten caption exists and no basis for exclusion under Rule 403 has been demonstrated, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the CCA Photograph. -14-