Opinion ID: 609734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: admission of drug ledger and telephone summaries

Text: 119 Thompson devotes a half page in his brief to an argument that the court abused its discretion by allowing the government to introduce two items of evidence: first, a ledger and related evidence summarizing certain of the drug sales made by Tulowiecki; and second, evidence of telephone calls between various telephone numbers associated with the alleged conspiracy, as well as summary charts of that information. 120 The drug ledger was a book maintained by Tulowiecki for about a month in the fall of 1987, in which Tulowiecki recorded cocaine sales, showing the purchaser (by code number), the amount of narcotics bought, the price and the date. When not using the ledger, Tulowiecki frequently recorded cocaine sales on slips of paper, a number of which were also introduced into evidence. In addition, Tulowiecki prepared for use at trial a summary of the transactions that were recorded in the ledger and on the slips of paper. Defendants did not object at trial to the introduction of the ledger and original papers, but they did object when the government sought to introduce Tulowiecki's summary. Thompson's brief does not identify any basis for concluding that the admission of these materials was error. 121 The telephone evidence consisted of frequency reports showing the number of calls between various telephone numbers of persons and businesses associated with the conspiracy, as well as charts summarizing that information. Many courts have admitted this type of evidence in conspiracy cases. E.g., United States v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968, 975 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 934, 108 S.Ct. 1108, 99 L.Ed.2d 269 (1988); United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 25-26 (1st Cir.1984). Thompson argues that the telephone records did not identify the specific persons who made or received the calls; but this merely limits and does not eliminate their relevance. Thompson also says that testimony and exhibits made it clear that the compilation of numbers [in the government's summaries] did not match the phone records. But Thompson fails either to specify any respects in which the summary materials were inaccurate or to cite us any such testimony and exhibits. 122