Opinion ID: 2982493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Authenticity of Bank Records

Text: Coffman argues that the district court erred when it admitted thousands of pages of bank records documenting Coffman’ s money transfers because they were not properly authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). At trial, Government witnesses testified that they used the bank records to create consolidated charts and documents outlining the flow of money into and out of Mid-America and Global bank accounts. We review “the district court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion.” Blanchard, 618 F.3d at 569. Business records may be admissible if the records are properly authenticated. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Coffman argues that the admitted bank records must be authenticated as provided in Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11), which permits authentication of “certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity” without “[e]xtrinsic evidence of authenticity,” provided the records are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), and are accompanied by a certificate meeting the rule’s standards. Because the Government did not have a certificate authenticating the bank records, Coffman argues, the court should have excluded them. Coffman is mistaken. Official certification is not the only means by which documents may be authenticated; they may also be authenticated using a “custodian or other qualified witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D). Regarding that provision, we have said: “there is no reason why a proper foundation for application of Rule 803(6) cannot be laid, in part or in whole, by the testimony of a government agent or other person outside the organization whose records are sought to be admitted. When a witness is used to lay the foundation for admitting records under Rule 803(6), all that is required is that the witness be familiar with the record keeping system.” Hathaway, 798 F.2d at 906. 19 Nos. 12-5574/5611.6090, United States v. Coffman, et al. Witnesses, including Assistant United States Attorney Lisa Hasday and Ryan Lee, a United States Postal Service analyst, testified to the authenticity of the records. Hasday testified that using account numbers from investors’ deposited checks, she subpoenaed bank records for a given time period. This testimony evinces a familiarity with the record keeping system of the banks. Lee’s testimony described the process for obtaining those bank records, demonstrating that he was familiar with the record keeping system of the banks. And the admitted documents had the appearance of bank records, and some of them contained Coffman’ s name and signature. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the bank records. In United States v. Sandles, we reversed a conviction because the government had failed to provide sufficient evidence that a bank’s deposits were FDIC-insured. 549 F.3 d. 508, 516 (6th Cir. 2006). But in that case the FDIC insurance of the deposits was an element of the offense. Id. Here, the Government simply had to comply with Rule 803(6). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Government had done so.