Opinion ID: 1003283
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inaccurate Summary Report

Text: Frank and Linda argue that the district court abused its discretion in admitting a report that allegedly contained inaccuracies. The report in question — a summary report presented during the testimony of a State Farm Insurance representative to show that Frank and Linda paid $12,776.12 in insurance payments over four years for various insured vehicles — contained information relating to vehicles that were owned by Frank’s father or that may have been leased. At trial, defense counsel objected to the report on the ground that there are a number of inaccuracies in this thing based on my inspection of what she brought with her. (J.A. at 609.) The district court, noting that the inaccuracies would go to the weight rather than the admissibility and that defense counsel can cross-examine [the witness] about it, (J.A. at 609-10), permitted the witness to testify about the summary. Defense counsel thereafter thoroughly cross-examined the witness as to the inaccuracies. We agree with the district court that Frank and Linda’s argument on this issue — that admission of the report prejudiced him because it contained inaccurate information — goes to weight rather than admissibility. See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 978-79 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding no abuse of discretion in admission of Market Analysis Center (MAC) reports because, among other reasons, a party need not prove that business records are accurate before they are admitted and Scholl had the opportunity to attack the reliability of the MAC reports at trial and did so), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 873 (Oct. 4, 1999); United States v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678, 694-95 (7th Cir. 1985) (finding no abuse of discretion because [g]enerally, objections that an exhibit may contain inaccuracies, ambiguities, or omissions go to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence); United States v. Smallwood, 443 F.2d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 1971) (The claimed error in the accuracy of the summaries was fully presented to the jury, and in our view the relatively few inaccuracies went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.); cf. United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150, 1160-61 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming admission of summary chart describing organization of drug conspiracy pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 611 because the summary chart aided the jury in ascertaining the truth and the district court minimized prejudice by, among other things, allowing extensive cross-examination 14 UNITED STATES v. MASIARCZYK regarding the basis for the chart); United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 736-37 (4th Cir. 1991) (affirming admission of composite tapes compiling excerpts of a longer broadcast pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and rejecting objection that the composite tapes were unrepresentative of the broadcasts because Bakker’s objection is misplaced because it goes to the weight to be accorded to the composite tapes, not their admissibility). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s admission of the summary report.