United States v. Bertram

District Court, E.D. Kentucky
259 F. Supp. 3d 638 (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4), an email may be authenticated by a witness who is neither the sender nor a recipient, provided the witness has sufficient personal knowledge to testify to the email's distinctive characteristics, such as its contents, appearance, or the purported author's known email address and signature patterns.

Facts:

The five Defendants were joint owners of a laboratory called PremierTox.
Kris Kaiser performed billing services for PremierTox.
In her role, Kaiser regularly corresponded via email with the five Defendants, including Brian Walters and Bryan Wood.
Through this regular correspondence, Kaiser became familiar with the Defendants' email addresses and signature characteristics.
An email exchange occurred between Defendants Bryan Wood and Brian Walters.
Kaiser was not a sender, recipient, or otherwise copied on this specific email exchange.
The email from Bryan Wood originated from an address referencing his profession and family ('kyerdoc11kids@yahoo.com') and was signed with his typical lowercase initials, 'bw.'
The email from Brian Walters originated from an address containing his first name and workplace ('brian@premierintegrity.com').

Procedural Posture:

The United States brought criminal charges against five defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The case proceeded to a jury trial.
During the trial, the Government sought to introduce emails exchanged between two of the defendants as evidence.
The Government called Kris Kaiser, who was not a party to the specific emails, to authenticate them.
The Defendants objected to the admission of the emails, arguing that they could not be properly authenticated by a witness who was neither a sender nor a recipient.
The court admitted the emails in a ruling from the bench and later issued this written opinion to supplement that ruling.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Federal Rule of Evidence 901 permit the authentication of an email by a witness who is neither the sender nor a recipient, based on the witness's familiarity with the purported authors' email habits and the email's distinctive characteristics?

Opinions:

Majority - Gregory F. Van Tatenhove

Yes. An email may be authenticated by a witness who is not a party to the communication if the proponent produces sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding that the email is what it purports to be. The court found that participation in a particular email is not a prerequisite for authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The key consideration is whether the testifying witness can speak to the email’s unique characteristics, contents, and appearance based on personal knowledge. In this case, witness Kris Kaiser had a history of communicating with the Defendants and could testify to the distinctive characteristics of their emails. She verified their email addresses, which contained identifying information, and confirmed that one Defendant typically signed his emails with the lowercase initials 'bw,' which appeared in the message. This circumstantial evidence was sufficient under Rule 901(b)(4) for a jury to conclude the emails were authentic, satisfying the rule's low threshold for admission.

Analysis:

This opinion clarifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to electronic communications, particularly in the Sixth Circuit where prior case law was sparse. It establishes that the authentication of emails relies on circumstantial evidence of distinctive characteristics rather than a rigid requirement that the authenticating witness be a direct participant. This approach provides attorneys with greater flexibility in admitting electronic evidence, especially in conspiracy cases where key communications may occur exclusively between co-conspirators. The ruling lowers the barrier for authentication, shifting the focus to whether there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find the document authentic, rather than demanding direct proof from a sender or recipient.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Bertram (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"