Opinion ID: 222568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Records Relating to Langford's NBC Credit Card

Text: Langford also complains that certain bank records related to his credit card at NBC Bank were improperly admitted. These records showed further special treatment that Langford received in exchange for county business. Specifically, Commissioner Langford caused the County to hire NBC Bank in February 2003 as its financial advisor for the bond transactions. Sometime later, Langford applied for a credit card from NBC Bank, and the bank issued one even though Langford's credit rating did not meet the bank's standards. Langford later applied for and was granted increases to his credit limit, even though his payment history was poor and the unpaid debt on the card was rising. The government argued that the records relating to the credit card were relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as evidence of other ... acts probative of intentin that Langford solicited, and the bank gave him, the card and extensions of credit as bribes to keep the County's business. Langford admits that the bank records were possibly relevant, but argues that the records should have been excluded because they constituted inadmissible hearsay. The district court admitted them under the business records exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the business-records exception, the following documents are admissible: A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, ... unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. Fed.R.Evid. 803(6). Langford argues that the records were improperly admitted because the proffered custodial witness, NBC Bank employee Kelly O'Donnell, who served on NBC's Financial Advisory Team, did not have personal knowledge of each of the records and therefore was not qualified as a custodian or other qualified witness under the Rule. We are unpersuaded. The advisory committee note to Rule 803(6), as clarified by the 1974 amendment, makes this point clear: It is the understanding of the committee that the use of the phrase person with knowledge is not intended to imply that the party seeking to introduce the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation must be able to produce, or even identify, the specific individual upon whose first-hand knowledge the memorandum, report, record or data compilation was based. A sufficient foundation for the introduction of such evidence will be laid if the party seeking to introduce the evidence is able to show that it was the regular practice of the activity to base such memorandums, reports, records, or data compilations upon a transmission from a person with knowledge.... Fed.R.Evid. 803 advisory committee's note. To satisfy Rule 803(6), ... the proponent must establish that it was the business practice of the recording entity to obtain such information from persons with personal knowledge and the business practice of the proponent to maintain the records produced by the recording entity. United States v. Bueno-Sierra, 99 F.3d 375, 379 (11th Cir.1996). Here, the government laid the following foundation: [AUSA]: Ms. O'Donnell, did the bank designate you as the custodian of records for these documents that are in front of you? A: Yes. [AUSA]: And to be clear, you don't have personal knowledge of the content of those documents? A: Correct. [AUSA]: But do you have personal knowledge of the process that was involved with gathering those documents? A: Yes. [AUSA]: And were these documents gathered from businesses at the bank, ongoing businesses? A: They were. [AUSA]: And these are documents that were made at or around the time, they were not made in response to a grand jury subpoena, the documents were not created in response to a grand jury subpoena? A: No. They were part of or appear to be part of documents routinely held in the normal course of business. We have said that [t]he touchstone of admissibility under the business records exception to the hearsay rule is reliability, and a trial judge has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of such evidence. Bueno-Sierra, 99 F.3d at 378. So, in United States v. Atchley, 699 F.2d 1055, 1058 (11th Cir.1983), we found that a proper foundation for a business record had been laid where Ms. McCook identified each exhibit and testified under oath that these records were kept in the ordinary course of business, that it was the ordinary course of her business to make and keep such records, that the records were made on or about the time of the transactions reflected in the records, and that she was the custodian of those records. We explained: It is not essential that the offering witness be the recorder or even be certain of who recorded the item. It is sufficient that the witness be able to identify the record as authentic and specify that it was made and preserved in the regular course of business. Id. (quotation omitted). Similar testimony was elicited hereO'Donnell testified that she was the custodian of the records, that she had personal knowledge of the process involved in gathering the documents, that the documents had been gathered from ongoing businesses at the bank, that the documents were not made in response to a subpoena, and that the documents were part of, or appeared to be part of, documents routinely held in the normal course of business. Moreover, defense counsel admitted that they did not challenge the authenticity of the documents. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence as a business record. [12]