Opinion ID: 3154646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brock’s Appeal

Text: On appeal, Brock presents one challenge to his convictions. He contends that the district court erred in admitting AT&T Wireless cell-phone records because the government did not establish the admissibility of the records through a custodian or qualified witness. The cell-phone records, Brock contends, gave a “prejudicial imprimatur of reliability” to the testimony of the cooperating witnesses, Camp and Colbert. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1009 (11th Cir. 2012). We review the factual findings underlying those rulings for clear error. Id. The cell-phone records were admitted under the business-records exception to the rule against hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). To establish that this exception applied, the government had to show two things: (1) that the documents 5 Case: 14-13519 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 6 of 20 were authentic and (2) that they met the requirements of Rule 803(6). 1 George Russell Curtis, Sr. Living Tr. v. Perkins (In re Int’l Mgmt. Assocs., LLC), 781 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2015). Under Rule 803(6), an authenticated document is admissible as a business record if it meets the following conditions: (a) it “was made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted by—someone with knowledge”; (b) it “was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity”; (c) and “making the record was a regular practice of that activity.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(A)–(C). The primary purpose of these requirements is to “determine[] whether the evidence possesses sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness.” United States v. Dreer, 740 F.2d 18, 20 (11th Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, even if the three requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)–(C) are met, the records may still be inadmissible if the opponent shows that “the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(E). The proponent may establish the requirements of Rule 803(6) through “the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D). In other words, someone who is knowledgeable about the procedures used to create the alleged business records must testify. See United States v. Garnett, 122 F.3d 1016, 1018-19 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[Rule] 803(6) requires the testimony of a 1 It is unclear whether Brock challenges both showings on appeal. Out of an abundance of caution, we will address both. 6 Case: 14-13519 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 7 of 20 custodian or other qualified witness who can explain the record-keeping procedure utilized.”). “The testifying witness does not need firsthand knowledge of the contents of the records, of their authors, or even of their preparation.” In re Int’l Mgmt. Assocs., LLC, 781 F.3d at 1268. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the cellphone records. The government sought to admit the records through the testimony of an AT&T independent contractor. The contractor testified that he was familiar with AT&T’s record-keeping practices, based both on his fifteen years of employment with A&T, which ended in 2009, and on his experience as an independent contractor for AT&T, which began in 2012. As an independent contractor, he provided testimony in court proceedings for AT&T about cell-phone records. The contractor also testified that he had spoken directly with the records custodian at AT&T about the specific records at issue. Accordingly, the government met its “light burden” of establishing the authenticity of the documents through the testimony of someone knowledgeable about them. See In re Int’l Mgmt. Assocs., LLL, 781 F.3d at 1267. The government also satisfied the three requirements of Rule 803(6) through the testimony of a “qualified witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D). The contractor testified that, based on his work experience with AT&T, both as an employee and as a contractor, as well as his discussions with the records custodian several days 7 Case: 14-13519 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 8 of 20 before trial, the records were made at or near the time by someone with knowledge, the records were kept in the course of regular business activity, and making a record was the regular practice of that activity. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Crediting the contractor’s testimony, the district court was well within its discretion to conclude that the contractor was sufficiently knowledgeable to explain AT&T’s record-keeping practices as required by Rule 803(6)(D) and that the records themselves satisfied Rule 803(6)(A)–(C). Brock contends that admission of the testimony and records was erroneous because any knowledge that the contractor had about the company’s record keeping was not his, because he did not work for AT&T when the records were prepared, but that of someone who was still employed with the company. Even assuming this is true, the contractor did not need independent or firsthand knowledge about the content or preparation of the records. In re Mgmt. Assocs., LLC, 781 F.3d at 1268. For example, in a recent bankruptcy decision, we held that business records admitted through the trustee were admissible because, although the trustee learned about the relevant record-keeping practices from someone else, he still possessed the requisite knowledge of the practices to satisfy Rule 803(6). See id. at 1267-69. As long as the government “presented enough circumstantial evidence to establish the trustworthiness of the underlying documents,” it did not need to present the testimony of someone with firsthand knowledge of the 8 Case: 14-13519 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 9 of 20 preparation of the records. Id. at 1268. Here, the government did so through the testimony of the independent contractor. Brock has not otherwise shown that the cell-phone records are unreliable or indicate a lack of trustworthiness. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(E). Consequently, the records were admissible under the business-records exception. We affirm Brock’s convictions.