Opinion ID: 165851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Edmund Miles's testimony

Text: 49 Edmund Miles met Naylor in the late 1990's when Naylor asked him to obtain a line of credit on the 1,000-metric ton certificate. At trial, Naylor sought to introduce a video deposition of Miles discussing their business dealings. The district court admitted most of the deposition but excluded two parts of Miles's testimony: first, one instance in which Miles testified that he believed the certificate was genuine; and second, one instance in which Miles stated he informed Naylor that it was UBS's policy not to authenticate gold certificates until they reached their date of maturity. 50 Naylor argues the court erred in excluding this evidence. However, he failed to object to the exclusion of the evidence at trial and did not advance an argument before the district court demonstrating the evidence's admissibility. Therefore, he failed to adequately preserve the claim for appeal and our review is for plain error. See Allan v. Springville City, 388 F.3d 1331, 1335 (10th Cir.2004) (To adequately object to the exclusion of evidence, the proponent of the excluded evidence must explain [to the district court] what he expects the evidence to show and the grounds for which he believes the evidence is admissible. (quotations and citation omitted)); United States v. James, 257 F.3d 1173, 1182 (10th Cir.2001) (detailing elements of plain error review). 51 We find no error in the district court's ruling. Regarding Miles's excluded testimony about his belief in the authenticity of the 1,000-metric ton certificate, there is no showing he ever communicated this belief to Naylor. In fact, Miles testified in the excluded portions that this belief came into being a long time after he spoke with Naylor about UBS's policy regarding the authentication of gold certificates. Therefore, the testimony would not bolster Naylor's good faith defense. In addition, the portion of Miles's testimony admitted by the court established that both Miles and Naylor believed the certificate to be authentic. In light of the admitted testimony, we cannot conclude the court erred in excluding one more instance in which Miles stated he believed the certificate to be authentic. 52 With respect to Miles's testimony that he informed Naylor of UBS's policy not to authenticate gold certificates until they reached their date of maturity, the testimony is only marginally relevant to whether Naylor believed the certificate to be legitimate. Further, Naylor's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow defense was more than adequately explained through other evidence. For example, the admitted portions of Miles's testimony established that (1) he communicated to Naylor nothing could be done with the certificate until maturity unless Naylor located a private buyer, (2) no one could determine the validity of the certificates until the time of maturity, and (3) UBS had a policy not to verify or acknowledge until maturity, which was designed to limit public information about existence of the valuable holdings. In addition, the court allowed Naylor to present direct evidence of his good faith belief in the certificates through documentary and testimonial evidence. 53 Based on the evidence in the record, we cannot say the excluded portion of Miles's testimony affected the outcome of the trial. Therefore we hold that exclusion of the evidence was not plain error.