Opinion ID: 198229
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Famania and the Boston Globe Subscription Card

Text: 45 Alicia Ellerbee made a controlled purchase of crack from Rodrguez on July 10, 1995. After negotiating the terms in Beaver Park, Ellerbee and undercover DEA Agent Russell met Rodrguez near his home. From the driver's side of his blue Honda, Rodrguez directed Ellerbee to the passenger seat, from where she retrieved a package wrapped in paper. Ellerbee testified that she gave the package directly to Agent Russell, and that the two then rendezvoused with DEA Agent Farley, who took the package from Russell. Farley testified that he received the package--a baggie of crack wrapped in a Boston Globe subscription card bearing Famania's name and address--within five minutes of the transaction between Ellerbee and Rodrguez. The subscription card was admitted into evidence through Agent Farley, who testified that it was in the same condition as it was when he received it from Agent Russell. 46 Famania argues that the card and Farley's testimony were admitted in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 602, which requires that a witness have personal knowledge about the matter to which he testifies. 47 Evidence is inadmissible under Rule 602 only if in the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion it finds that the witness could not have actually perceived or observed that which he testified to. United States v. Neal, 36 F.3d 1190, 1206 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1012, 117 S.Ct. 519, 136 L.Ed.2d 407 (1996) (citation omitted). Personal knowledge can include inferences and opinions, so long as they are grounded in personal observations and experience. Id. (citation omitted). 48 Here, Agent Farley testified that he personally received the drugs, wrapped in the subscription card, from Agent Russell five minutes after the transaction between Ellerbee and Rodrguez. Indeed, on cross-examination, Farley acknowledged that he did not personally view the transaction between Ellerbee and Rodrguez, and that he did not see the card when Ellerbee picked it up, or know the precise configuration of the card at the time of the transaction with Rodrguez. As a result, Farley's testimony was based on his personal knowledge, and is therefore admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 602. 49 Famania's argument with respect to the subscription card is essentially a complaint about the chain of custody. He contends that [t]here was no evidence that Agent Farley or Agent Russell signed the card at the time of the transaction or otherwise secured it as evidence. Def. Br. at 9. His concern is that there was no evidence as to what Agent Russell did with the card in the five minutes that transpired before he met with Agent Farley. 50 A possible defect in the chain of custody for a certain piece of evidence factors into the weight given to the evidence rather than its admissibility. See United States v. Abreu, 952 F.2d 1458, 1467 (1st Cir.1992). A defendant can attempt to cast doubt on an exhibit's authenticity. Such an issue, however, is to be resolved by the jury, and not the judge. Thus, the subscription card was properly admitted into evidence.