Opinion ID: 626397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Greene

Text: Greene contends that the District Court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence summary charts and when it refused to order production of an agent’s rough notes. We review the District Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 458 F.3d 312, 315 (3d Cir. 2006). “[A]n evidentiary ruling is to be reversed only if arbitrary or irrational.” Id.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence telephone records accompanied by a written certification because they were properly authenticated pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11). Moreover, the summary chart of those voluminous telephone records was properly admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 1006. See United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting summary evidence is admissible under Rule 1006 if the underlying materials upon which it is based are admissible).
The District Court rejected Greene’s request for Agent Arthurton’s rough notes, finding that “absent other circumstances” there was an “insufficient basis” to require their production. Because Greene failed to raise a “colorable claim” that the rough notes contained Brady material that had not been included in Agent Arthurton’s report, the District Court correctly denied Greene’s request. See United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 71 (3d Cir. 1994). 9
Greene contends that the District Court should have ordered a mistrial sua sponte following his testimony that he had a prior felony conviction. When a defendant objects but fails to request a mistrial, we review for plain error. United States v. Richards, 241 F.3d 335, 341 (3d Cir. 2001). Under that standard, the Court may, in its discretion, correct an error only if the appellant demonstrates that: 1) there is an error, 2) the error is “clear or obvious,” 3) the error “affected the appellant’s substantial rights,” i.e.,. affected the outcome of the District Court proceedings, and 4) the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010). Although the fact of Greene’s prior felony conviction should not have been elicited, he did not testify regarding its nature. At the prompt objection and request of defense counsel, the District Court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the answer and also gave a curative instruction a short time later. The District Court’s actions were an adequate cure for any potential prejudice, especially in light of the amount of evidence introduced against Greene at trial. We conclude, therefore, that the error was not plain.