Court Opinion

ID: 9469980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:53:51.052205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:39.607648
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Nelson’s opinion for the reasons expressed. In addition, there are other reasons why the defendant’s conviction must be reversed.
Government Exhibits 3 and 4 were the only evidence offered to prove that the defendant was convicted of crimes in Israel before entering this country. While the precise origin of these documents is unclear, they were obtained through Interpol. Interpol is a widely known international police organization. It is not an agency of the Israeli Government and it certainly is not a part of the government of this country. A record of convictions from Interpol has no more authority in the legal proceedings of the United States than records of alleged convictions that may be kept by Lloyd’s of London for insurance purposes.
The documents are not signed by a person having either appropriate authority or official capacity. Both exhibits bear the signature “Herstig” above the words “Dept, of Automatic Data Processing.” The identity of Herstig is never revealed, and his official position, employment by the Israeli Government and his authorization by that government’s law to make these attestations are never discussed.
Exhibit 4 can best be described as a police report of conviction on a “rap sheet.” Such documents have never been allowed as evidence of a conviction arising from an American court proceeding, and therefore certainly cannot be used to prove convictions in a foreign nation.
In order for a federal prosecutor to prove the fact of conviction of a person in a state court; he must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1738,1 which requires that records of court proceedings of the states be authenticated by attestation of the court clerk and the certification of a judge of the court. In Glainos v. United States, 163 F.2d 593 (D.C.Cir.1947), the court held that a record of convictions made by a police agency is not admissible as evidence of those convictions. That court pointed out that while rap sheets may be useful to the police in their law enforcement capacity, the record of convictions for the purposes of a court must come from a court itself in order to be considered reliable. Id. at 596.
In United States v. Scott, 592 F.2d 1139 (10th Cir.1979), the court held that a federal prosecutor may use a rap sheet to cross-ex*1296amine a witness regarding prior convictions, but it clearly stated that such a document is not admissible as a public record of the convictions. Id. at 1143. R.ap sheets are not based on first-hand knowledge of the matters being recorded; only the court where the conviction occurred has such knowledge.
What is required of American police and courts must be required of foreign police and courts. The reliability accorded foreign police records in our courts cannot be greater than that accorded the police records of this country.

. Section 1738 states:
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.