Opinion ID: 788362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence at the Revocation Hearing

Text: 5 At the probation revocation hearing, the government called Febus as a witness and introduced a number of documents in support of the probation revocation charges. With respect to the first two charges, Febus testified, inter alia, that Aspinall had claimed in September 2003 to be self-employed; that in November she stated that she was working as an employee of a company called Shard Consulting (Shard); and that in December, Aspinall stated that her employment with Shard required her to commute to Connecticut. In support of her claim to be employed by Shard, Aspinall submitted to Febus pay stubs from Shard; handwritten, certified reports by Aspinall ( see, e.g., Government Exhibit 9); and a letter dated December 16, 2003, on Shard Consulting, LLC. letterhead, signed by Edna Reeves[,] Managing Partner & Project Leader, stating that, commencing December 17, 2003, Aspinall would be required to perform her duties in Stamford, Connecticut (Government Exhibit 5 (the Shard Letter)). 6 Febus testified that when she suggested in her December 2003 conversation with Aspinall that Febus would call Shard to verify Aspinall's new assignment in Connecticut ( see Rev. Tr. 47-48), Aspinall said, Don't call them because they don't know my status on probation. And if you do, they are going to fire me ( id. at 48). After that conversation, Febus performed computerized database searches to determine whether there was any corporation called Shard at 45 Main Street, Suite 309, Brooklyn, New York, the address that was shown on the Shard Letter and that had previously been given for Shard by Aspinall in documents she submitted to the Probation Department and the Department of Justice. Febus testified that her search turned up no company called Shard at that address. Accordingly, Febus thereafter asked an FBI agent, whose other duties required a trip to Brooklyn, to stop by this location and check ... if this company existed.... And if the company existed ... to determine whether what Aspinall had submitted were true pay stubs. ( Id. at 21.) 7 Febus testified that the FBI agent visited the purported Shard address, found there only a small answering service, AI Business Services (AI), and obtained from AI two documents (identified at the hearing as Government Exhibits 2 and 3): 8 Q. Did the FBI agent go to the address at 45 Main Street, suite 309? 9 A. Yes, they [ sic ] did, on December 19 in the morning. 10 Q. Did you speak to the FBI agent after the FBI agent went to that address? 11 A. Yes. She called me and she told me that she had been to the location, that there was not a company called Shard Consulting at the address or the room given, that it was an answering service. 12 Q. What was the name of the answering service? 13 A. AI Business Services. 14 Q. And did the FBI agent describe to you what suite 309 looks like? 15 A. Yes. She said it was a room that was not too big. It had about five representatives of AI that served as operators answering telephones with telephone equipment on a desk. 16 Q. Aside from visiting the location, did she do anything else at that location. 17 A. She returned after [performing her other duties that day] and they handed documents to her. 18 Q. And what documents were they? 19 A. They were agreements that were completed by the probationer who would be paying for services to AI. 20 Q. Has the FBI agent provided you with copies of those documents? 21 A. She provided me with the originals. 22 .... 23 Q. What, if anything, did you learn from those documents about the relationship between Shard Consulting and AI Business Services? 24 (Rev. Tr. 21-23.) At this point, Aspinall's attorney objected: 25 MR. BAUM [attorney for Aspinall]: Your Honor, I object to this testimony on several grounds. Number one, it's not demonstrated that Kareese Lindsay or even Clarissa Aspinall is the source of the information on these documents. 26 ( Id. at 23; see also id. at 8-9 (Kareese Lindsay was Aspinall's name prior to a September 2002 court-approved name change.).) Defense counsel continued: 27 Secondly, it's hearsay. And while hearsay is permissible at probation hearings, they [ sic ] are permissible only where ... the government demonstrates that they [ sic ] are unable to get the original source before the court. 28 .... [T]here is nothing in this record, nor in the foundation now being laid to demonstrate that my client is the source of this information. So for the officer to tell the Court that this is what the document says and it comes from my client has no basis in fact at this point. 29 .... 30 .... There is an objection to the documents. This is the basis for my objection aside from hearsay. The objection to the documents is it is being offered to show that the information in the document comes from my client. It's being offered for its truth. 31 ( Id. at 23-24.) 32 Although Assistant United States Attorney Lai responded that the AI documents were not being offered for their truth (Rev. Tr. 24), Aspinall's attorney continued with his hearsay objection and argued that the admission of the documents would violate the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation ( id. ). The hearsay debate then continued, and defense counsel reiterated his contention that there was a foundation problem: 33 Ms. LAI: Your Honor, it is being offered for the falsity [ sic ] of the statements in paragraph 13 [of Government Exhibit 2] and maybe also paragraph 10. 34 MR. BAUM: That's the point. It is being offered for its truth [ sic ] and there is nothing to show that it comes from Ms. Aspinall. We don't even know if it was written by Ms. Aspinall or under what circumstances it was filled out. We don't know if it's accurate or where the information comes from. 35 THE COURT: I have it. Let's see where we go.... [T]here is no jury here. So let us proceed and we will see what happens. I have to sort out exactly what it is being offered for, whether indeed it is being offered for the truth. If it is not being offered for the truth, then we don't have a hearsay problem anyway. It's not being offered for the truth in the sense that the government is not taking the position that the information in this document is truthful. That's not the government's position. The government's position is that the information in the document is false. 36 The other question, though, is, where did this come from, who wrote it? I don't know that that's a hearsay problem. 37 MR. BAUM: That's a foundation problem because if they can't show it came from Ms. Lindsay or Ms. Aspinall, then why is it being offered? What's the relevancy? 38 THE COURT: It has her name in it. The question is, who would have submitted something to AI that said, please note, if anyone requests to verify Clarissa Aspinall, please make sure that the social security number is verified, et cetera, et cetera. Who would have had incentive to write this information on this piece of paper and give it to AI? I don't think it's a hearsay problem. I think it's more what does it show. And I think I need to hear all the facts and circumstances. And I'll conclude whether it shows anything. Let's see what happens. 39 (Rev. Tr. 24-26.) Ultimately, Government Exhibits 2 and 3 were admitted in evidence. ( See id. at 28-29, 64-65.) 40 Government Exhibit 2 was an AI document bearing the heading Customer Service Questionnaire and calling for details as to how the customer wished certain matters handled. Question 10 read, If you would like A.I. to provide employment verification services, please include employee name, dates employed, position with company, and salary, and Question 13 asked for any additional information that would assist AI in handling the account. (Government Exhibit 2, at 2.) The handwritten responses on Exhibit 2 included Aspinall's name, social security number, and the following instruction: 41 If anyone requests to verify Clarissa Aspinall, please make sure SS# is verified, and let them know her hours of employment and that she is paid off the books bi-weekly $1250.00 and her hours are 8 am — 8:30 pm and on Saturdays she does an unpaid internship. — > Schwann Mayer is her supervisor. 42 If anyone requests to speak with her, she is an external consultant that meets with various clients daily, request if want to leave a message or voicemail. 43 ( Id. ) 44 The AI document introduced as Government Exhibit 3 was a handwritten memorandum from Aspinall to Debra Re: Phone call yesterday, stating that [t]he company is Shard Consulting. Attached is Kareese's authorization to use the card. Please process ASAP. (Government Exhibit 3, at 1.) The attachment read, I, Kareese Lindsay, do hereby authorize Clara Aspinall to use my credit card on August 28, 2003 for charges by AI Services, and it provided a credit card number, expiration date, and three-digit code. (Government Exhibit 3, at 2.) Aspinall had been permitted to change her name from Kareese Lindsay pursuant to a state-court order in September 2002 ( see Defense Exhibit A) on the ground that she was a victim of domestic violence and sought to avoid detection by her child's father ( see Rev. Tr. 9). The order authorized her to use the name Clarissa Janae Aspinall, and ... no other name(s). (Defense Exhibit A, at 4.) 45 Febus received the AI documents on Friday, December 19, 2003. ( See Rev. Tr. 27-28.) On that day, the government applied for a search warrant for Aspinall's home, 1233 Arnow Avenue in the Bronx. ( See id. at 32-33.) In addition, early on Monday, December 22, probation officers set up a surveillance of Aspinall in light of her representations that she would be working in Connecticut. ( See id. at 30.) During the surveillance, the officers reported to their supervisor that Aspinall seemed to be driving around New York randomly; Febus promptly called Aspinall's cell phone to ask about the location of her employment. ( See id. at 30-31.) Aspinall responded that she was on her way to her employment in Connecticut; however, as the surveillance team observed, she instead went home. ( See id. at 30-32.) 46 The requested search warrant for Aspinall's home was issued, and was executed on December 24. Among the documents seized was a payroll record generated by a company called Paychex, addressed to Shard at 1233 Arnow Avenue in the Bronx, i.e., Aspinall's home. ( See id. at 32-33.) That document, introduced as Government Exhibit 6, bore the legend KAREESE LINDSAY DBA SHARD, revealing that Shard was an alter-ego for Kareese Lindsay, Aspinall's former name which Aspinall had continued to use. ( See also Defense Exhibit C, an Internal Revenue Service Employer Identification Number Cover Sheet dated November 13, 2003, addressed to KAREESE LINDSAY for KAREESE LINDSAY DBA SHARD CONSULTING.) 47 The Shard payroll record listed as employees only Aspinall, Kareese Lindsay, and Alaisia D'Aguilar (Aspinall's nine-year-old daughter). (Government Exhibit 6.) Edna Reeves, signer of the Shard Letter as Shard's purported Managing Partner & Project Leader, was not listed ( see Rev. Tr. 34); nor was any adult person listed other than Aspinall. Thus, despite the representation by Aspinall that Shard d[id]n't know [her] status on probation and would fire her if it found out ( id. at 48), the documents revealed that Shard was Aspinall's own company. Febus also testified that no documents were found indicating that Shard itself ha[d] ever received payments for contract work to other companies. ( Id. at 55-56.) 48 As to the Probation Revocation Petition's charges that Aspinall had violated the terms of her home confinement and had tampered with her electronic monitoring device in an attempt to avoid detection of that violation, Febus's testimony may be summarized briefly as follows. On December 6, 2003, Aspinall was required to be in her home by no later than 5:00 p.m. At 4:03 p.m., the electronic device in Aspinall's residence was disconnected; at 4:05 p.m., Aspinall left the house. At 7:12 p.m., she returned, whereupon the unit was plugged in again. Unbeknownst to Aspinall, however, the device contained a battery that permitted it to continue functioning even after being unplugged; thus, her absence from home was recorded. Febus testified that Aspinall, when first confronted about the unauthorized absence, repeatedly denied leaving her residence and denied any unplugging of the monitoring device; she recanted those denials only after learning of the device's battery backup system. Thereafter, Aspinall claimed that the device had been accidentally disconnected by her daughter. Aspinall called her mother as a witness to testify to that effect at the hearing.