Opinion ID: 171265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Public Records

Text: The defendants also object to the admission of copies of four handwritten ETA-750s, arguing that their entry into evidence violated the rule for admission of public records. Federal Rule of Evidence 1005 holds that [t]he contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed ... if otherwise admissible, may be proven by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given. No government witness testified to having compared the duplicates to the original, and the copies were not certified under Federal Rule of Evidence 902. Therefore, to admit the documents under Rule 1005, the government was required to prove that it could not obtain the original or a compliant copy through the exercise of reasonable diligence. In response to the defendant's objection to the admission of a copy, the district court held that as of the time of trial the originals were either lost or not obtainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence or available judicial process. Dist. Ct. Op. 21. The defendants challenge that conclusion on appeal. We review the district court's decision to admit the evidence for abuse of discretion, and its factual finding that the originals were not obtainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence for clear error. See United States v. Samaniego, 187 F.3d 1222, 1223 (10th Cir.1999); see also United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1277 (10th Cir.2007). We find neither clear error nor an abuse of discretion. At trial, Ms. Burbridge testified that her office had such a high backlog of ETA-750 applications immediately following the LIFE Act deadline that they were forced to send many applications to the Dallas office of the Department of Labor for review. Many of those filed by the Phillips law firm were sent to Dallas. The prosecutor informed the court that the government had tried [to retrieve the documents] and there's just no way that we can get the original back, expressing his frustration that Dallas was like a black hole. Ms. Burbridge testified that while she could probably [retrieve an original from Dallas] if it was requested, it might take awhile. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the government exercised reasonable diligence in its attempt to obtain an original copy, and could therefore introduce a copy instead. Fed.R.Evid. 1005.