Court Opinion

ID: 9460264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:46:04.790264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:33.079772
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my view, it was error to receive in evidence the “memos” on the loekseal envelopes and to send the “memos” to the jury along with other exhibits. This case is difficult to distinguish from United States v. Brown, 451 F.2d 1231 (CA5 1971), and Sanchez v. United States, 293 F.2d 260 (CA8 1961). Here, as in those cases, it is hard to say that the “memos” did not influence the jury to the defendant’s detriment. Had the only information on the loekseal envelopes been the “chem*525ist’s portion of the exhibit,” the majority’s view would be sustainable. In such event, the exhibits would have properly been admissible under the Business Reeords Act.
Under the circumstances, I feel that the matter should be remanded for a new trial.
I concur with the majority’s disposition of the remaining issues.
APPENDIX I