The background was as follows: The defendant was the author of a tax evasion program to "escape federal and state income taxation." The defendant sold the program to a veterinarian named Leveto. The program was essentially a mirage, with Leveto retaining control of the income which apparently found its way to foreign and domestic bank accounts. The IRS obtained and executed a search warrant on Leveto's home and business. In that search, the IRS seized certain documents, including foreign and domestic bank records. The grand jury indicted the defendant, Leveto and the Leveto's wife for a Klein / defraud conspiracy.
At trial, over defendant's objection, the court admitted (i) recorded conversations of the veterinarian with an IRS sting agent under FRE 801(d)(2)(E); and (ii) the bank documents. I focus here on the bank documents.
1. Authenticity.
Documents require authentication. The defendant argued that the foreign bank documents were not authenticated. The record showed only that they were seized from the veterinarian's premises. The Court held that the authentication requirement had been met:
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) requires the authentication of evidence before a district court may admit it. The standard for authenticating evidence is "slight," McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 928 (3d Cir. 1985), and may be satisfied by "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). This Court does not require conclusive proof of a document's authenticity, but merely a prima facie showing of some competent evidence to support authentication. McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 928; United States v. Goichman, 547 F.2d 778, 784 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). "Once a prima facie case is made, the evidence goes to the jury and it is the jury who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence, not the court." Goichman, 547 F.2d at 784.
