Opinion ID: 212690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Barbados Letter

Text: Crosgrove argues that the letter from the Supervisor of Insurance of Barbados, which was addressed to Crosgrove at the AREA/Noble offices and found among AREA/Noble documents, was improperly admitted. Crosgrove's main arguments are that the letter is hearsay and was never properly authenticated, but he also mentions that no chain of custody was established. The letter, however, was not hearsay and was adequately authenticated, and Crosgrove's newly raised chain-of-custody argument does not suggest plain error. Crosgrove argues that the Barbados letter was the linch-pin of the Government's case, because it was the only tangible evidence that there was no insurance. Therefore, Crosgrove appears to contend, the letter was offered into evidence to prove that there was no insurance, making the letter hearsay not within any exception. The Government responds that the letter was not hearsay, because it was not used to show that there was no insurance, but rather that Crosgrove was on notice at or near the outset of his employment with Haukedahl that there may not have been a valid insurance policy. Crosgrove's own statements ultimately support the Government's position. In his reply brief, Crosgrove states that the government was specifically using the Barbados letter to prove that Crosgrove had notice that there were issues with the underlying insurance. As part of its case, the Government had to show that Crosgrove knew of the illegality of the insurance scheme. Because [i]t is axiomatic that the hearsay rule only excludes extrajudicial statements when they are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, Kuklica v. City of Cleveland, No. 84-3991, 1986 WL 17706, at  (6th Cir. Sept. 15, 1986), the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the letter for the purpose of showing notice. In fact, Crosgrove's argument on appeal that the letter was the Government's only tangible evidence that there was no insurance is off target, since Crosgrove has never argued that valid insurance existed and his trial counsel conceded that a conspiracy existed between Haukedahl and Ritson. Because the illegality of the scheme was not in issue, the letter's relevance was predominantly to show notice, an admissible purpose for the use of out-of-court statements. Id.; United States v. Jefferson, 650 F.2d 854, 858 (6th Cir.1981). Crosgrove's argument that the letter was not properly authenticated is also without merit. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). Crosgrove argues that the Government did not properly authenticate the letter because no one from Barbados identified the letter as an authentic document. This argument ignores that proponents of exhibits may also prove their authenticity with circumstantial evidence. 1-8 Weinstein's Evidence Manual § 8.01. At trial, Ritson testified that he received a very similar letter at his law office at an earlier date and had notified the appropriate party that the letter should be addressed to Crosgrove. In addition to this testimony, Crosgrove acknowledges that the letter was found among the documents seized from the AREA/Noble offices. Ritson's testimony that he, AREA/Noble's former counsel, had received a similar letter and had subsequently conveyed Crosgrove's name and position to that letter's sender, combined with the fact that the letter addressed to Crosgrove was found among AREA/Noble documents, was sufficient to authenticate the letter for the limited purpose of showing notice. On appeal, Crosgrove mentions that no chain of custody was established for the Barbados letter. This argument was not raised at trial and is not developed on appeal. Crosgrove appears to be referring to the fact that no one testified as to what happened to the letter after it was seized from AREA/Noble offices. Before trial, however, the parties stipulated to locations where government agents found many government exhibits maintained in the AREA/Noble offices, and agreed that there would not need to be testimony on those facts for each document. Given that Crosgrove's trial counsel stipulated to the location of AREA/Noble documents, the chain-of-custody argument is particularly weak, and certainly does not survive plain-error review. See United States v. Thomas, 38 Fed.Appx. 198, 203 (6th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Collins, 78 F.3d 1021, 1033 (6th Cir.1996)). Crosgrove's brief makes several other points with regard to the letter, including: there is no evidence that Crosgrove ever read the letter, a government informant testified that he never saw the letter in the office that he shared with Crosgrove, and Haukedahl may have hidden (or even written) the letter. All of these arguments go to the weight the jury should afford the evidence, not to its admissibility. Trial counsel was able to raise each of these points at trial, both through cross examination and closing arguments. Therefore, the district court did not commit error by admitting the Barbados letter into evidence.