Opinion ID: 2996075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: We reject Klinzing’s constitutional challenges to the DPPA and amended FED. R. EVID. 803(6), and we AFFIRM his conviction. 2 Klinzing does not mount an “as applied” challenge to the constitutionality of Rule 803(6). We note, however, that it appears from the trial transcript that the government complied with all requirements of Rules 803(6) and 902(11) in seeking to admit business records into evidence without foundation testimony of the record keepers. The trial judge reviewed the pro- posed evidentiary records and excluded some because they did not contain adequate indicia of reliability and did not come within the scope of business records intended for admission as hearsay exceptions under Rule 803(6). As a result, only five W-2 wage statements were eventually admitted under the amended rules. While Klinzing objected on the grounds that their admission violated his constitutional rights, he neither deposed nor called the record keepers to the stand for cross-examination as was his right. Nor did he ever present evidence that the information in the admitted W-2s was inaccurate or incomplete. Thus, even if we found the amended rules violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, the admission of the documents constituted harmless error. No. 02-2080 13 A true Copy: Teste: ________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—1-9-03