Opinion ID: 2974130
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Crawford

Text: In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the use at trial of out-of-court testimonial evidence violates the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant was able to cross-examine the witness prior to trial. In so holding, “the Supreme Court noted that testimonial evidence is the primary object of the Confrontation Clause.” United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 411 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2909 (2006). Baker argues that the postal records and Simmons’s related testimony are testimonial in nature and thus “subject to exclusion under the authority of Crawford.” Appellant Br. at 21. As discussed above, the postal records were properly admitted by the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). The government correctly points out that business records are nontestimonial and therefore do not implicate the Confrontation Clause concerns of Crawford. Appellee Br. at 15-17. First, Crawford itself stated that business records “by their nature were not testimonial.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56; see also id. at 76 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in the judgment) (“To its credit, the Court’s analysis of ‘testimony’ excludes at least some hearsay exceptions, such as business records and official records.”). In addition, we have held that business records are nontestimonial. Jamieson, 427 F.3d at 411. Cases from other courts of appeals provide further support for the government’s position that Crawford does not apply to business records. See, e.g., United States v. McIntosh, No. 05-1782, 2006 WL 1158897, at  (7th Cir. May 3, 2006) (unpublished order); United States v. Hagege, 437 F.3d 943, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. King, 161 F. App’x 296, 297 (4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion); United States v. Shepard, 154 F. App’x 849, 851 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion). The district court’s admission of the postal records without consideration of Crawford’s limitation regarding testimonial evidence was not plain error. 9 The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” No. 05-3336 United States v. Baker Page 6