Opinion ID: 625013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Authenticity of Evidence

Text: Prior to trial, Macaluso moved to exclude evidence of his alleged online communications, arguing that the evidence had not been properly authenticated, as he denied sending or receiving the messages. The district court denied the motion, stating that testimony of another participant to the conversations would be sufficient to authenticate the evidence. A district court’s authentication rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2000). Documents are not admissible at trial unless and until they are properly authenticated by evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent 2 Decisions handed down by the former Fifth Circuit before the close of business on September 30, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 15 claims.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The proponent merely needs to present sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be. United States v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir. 1985). Authentication may be accomplished through the testimony of a witness with knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1); United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 333 (2011). We will not disturb a district court’s determination that a particular piece of evidence has been appropriately authenticated unless there is no competent evidence in the record to support it. Caldwell, 776 F.2d at 1001. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the online chats and emails because the victims’ testimony that the government’s exhibits accurately portrayed their online communications with Macaluso was sufficient to authenticate the evidence.