Opinion ID: 42387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Documents at Trial

Text: FBI agent Kathleen Antona testified that she was the team leader for the execution of a search warrant on the premises of NWE. Antona testified about the procedure generally followed in the execution of a warrant. According to Antona, agents secure the location, identify the individuals present, and then photograph the entire location before the search is performed. As team leader, Antona monitors the seizures made by the agents, takes possession of items seized, and notes them on an inventory property receipt. The evidence is then transported to an FBI evidence locker. Antona stated that this procedure was followed in the execution of the warrant at NWE. She further testified that Block was on the premises of NWE at the time of the search. According to Antona, the bates stamping on the seized documents indicates their location at the time of the seizure. Antona identified copies of a property receipt that was filled out and signed at the scene. From examining the property receipt, she testified that Box 10 was seized from the desk designated H-5, which contained business cards for Jeffrey Block, listing his title as vice-president of trading for NWE. She further testified that she could tell the location of a document from the NWE seizure by examining 4 the bates stamp and property receipt. Antona stated that the exhibits were in substantially the same condition as when they were seized. FBI Special Agent Steffan Nass testified that he participated in the execution of the search warrant at NWE. According to Nass, Block was behind desk H-5 when the agents first entered the room. Nass searched desk H-5 and he found on the desk a display of business cards, which had the name Jeffrey Block and the title vice-president of trading on them. Nass admitted that he did not recollect specifically the documents found, and that he relied on the bate numbers to show the location from which the documents were seized. John Van Etten, owner of International Legal Imprints (“ILI”), testified that his company provided copying services to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this case. According to Van Etten, ILI is located in locked, secured facility. A code is required to enter its production facility and the storage room is under a separate lock and key. ILI obtained authorization to provide photocopying services to the U.S. Attorney’s Office after an inspection of the company’s facilities and a criminal background check on its employees. ILI’s employees are trained using dummy boxes, which are checked by an experienced staff member. Van Etten testified that ILI followed its usual procedure in providing copying services to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this case. Either Van Etten or 5 one of the account managers picked up the documents to be copied and brought them to ILI’s facility. Next, the boxes were labeled and taken to the production facility. The pages inside the box were numbered consecutively with any prefixes or other information provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. After the documents were labeled, ILI’s production team made copies of the documents. According to Van Etten, ILI also followed its standard procedure for labeling documents contained in envelopes. A label was placed on the envelope and each of the documents inside, the documents were returned to the envelope, and the envelope was returned to the box. The production supervisor checked the boxes as the copying was done. Other than adding the bates labels, the documents were not altered. In this case, ILI made two copies of the documents. ILI returned the originals and one set of copies to the U. S. Attorney’s Office, and it kept the other set of copies. On cross-examination, Etten admitted that he had no independent proof that ILI’s procedures were followed in this case. The government offered the documents into evidence. Block objected for lack of foundation and no proof of the chain of custody. The district court overruled Block’s objections. The district court then instructed the jury: [O]ne of the issues in this case is where did certain documents come from. Okay? That is a matter that has to be proved to the jury. So the fact that it has been received into evidence doesn’t mean that [t]he 6 Court has passed on that. This is now for you to determine based on what you have heard . . . . [O]ne of those factual issues that is before the jury . . . is . . . where did the document come from and can the Government prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the particular document has reference to a particular Defendant in the case. R12 at 1781-82.