Opinion ID: 593168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photograph of Murley, Clark and Bello-Perez

Text: 24 The district court admitted a photograph of Murley, Clark and Bello-Perez with their arms around each other's shoulders. Bello-Perez objected on the ground that no proper foundation had been laid for the introduction of the photograph, whereas in fact it is the objection which was without foundation. Clark testified that the photograph was taken in his living room during the last half of 1988; i.e., during the course of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment. See Lucero v. Stewart, 892 F.2d 52, 55 (9th Cir.1989) (approximate date of photograph adequate for authentication). 25 On appeal, Bello-Perez asserts for the first time that the photograph should have been excluded under Rule 403. As the objection was not preserved below, we review only for plain error, a demonstration that justice has miscarried or that the trial's basic fairness has been compromised. United States v. Hadfield, 918 F.2d 987, 995 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2062, 114 L.Ed.2d 466 (1991). As the photograph itself, simply depicting a friendly meeting among the alleged conspirators, portended no unfair prejudice whatever, the claim is frivolous.