Opinion ID: 504457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of FDIC Insurance

Text: 75 Defendant Roberts contends that the government failed to prove the bank was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) when robbed, an essential element of the charged offense. 76 Douglas winter, vice-president and cashier at the bank, testified that he was responsible for making sure that the bank was insured by FDIC. Winter identified a copy of the original FDIC certificate and a copy of a check that Winter said paid for coverage for the period July 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986. On cross-examination Winter noted that the check had been processed on July 24, three days after the robbery. He explained that the bank had until July 31 to make the payment for the coverage in question, and was definitely covered by FDIC on July 21, 1986. 77 In United States v. Teague, 445 F.2d 114 (7th Cir.1971), the Seventh Circuit upheld the introduction of a certificate and a premium notice. The court stated as follows: 78 Procuring and maintaining insurance is a fundamental and necessary business operation for institutions dealing with large sums of money.... The documents themselves contain nothing which detract from their authenticity.... The person who makes the records need not testify ... if a person does testify who is in a position to attest to the authenticity of the records. 79 445 F.2d at 119 (citation omitted). 80 Winter was in a position to attest to the authenticity of the documents in question. The evidence was carefully considered by the court below and we find no abuse of discretion in its admission. We are also satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that the bank had been insured by FDIC on the date of the robbery. 81