Opinion ID: 667660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Net Worth Testimony

Text: 7 Andrew Bennett is employed by Metro-Dade County as an audit manager in the Department of Internal Auditing. At trial, he testified about the Gonzalez brothers' net worth and the results of a cash expenditure analysis. 7 His testimony was based on his review of the brothers' abundant financial records and was admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 as summary testimony of voluminous evidence. It was offered to corroborate evidence of the Gonzalez' unexplained income. 8 While defendants concede the trial judge has broad discretion to admit this kind of evidence, they invoke Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954) and claim Bennett's testimony should have been subject to the same rigorous evidentiary requirements that such net worth evidence is subject to in tax evasion cases. 8 We disagree and decline to extend Holland to prosecutions like this one. 9 The government commonly uses net worth or cash expenditure analysis evidence in tax evasion cases. And it is true that when it does, it must meet strict evidentiary requirements. But, unlike tax evasion cases, the circumstances of a drug prosecution do not compel the application of these standards. In tax cases, net worth proof is the crucial--and often the only--evidence available to prove wrongdoing. It goes to an element of the offense and triggers a conclusive inference of guilt. So, high restrictions on its admissibility are warranted. 9 10 But in this case, the evidence was corroborative only. Strict evidentiary conditions are not necessary to protect the defendants' due process rights. Any shortcomings in Bennett's testimony went to its weight, not its admissibility. 10 The district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court properly concluded that the credibility of Bennett's testimony, weighed against the significant rebuttal evidence offered by appellants, was for the jury. 11 AFFIRMED.