United States v. Donatus Iriele
Unpublished, 2020 WL 6019342 (11th Cir. Oct. 9, 2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law enforcement officer's lay opinion testimony identifying a defendant's handwriting is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(2), even if the officer's familiarity with the handwriting was acquired during the criminal investigation, because such familiarity is gained for investigative purposes, not 'for the current litigation.'
Facts:
- Donatus Iriele and his wife, Rosemary Ofume, owned and operated the Medicine Center Pharmacy (MCP).
- MCP was located a few blocks from a pain management clinic, Atlanta Medical & Research Clinic (AMARC), which was known for prescribing large quantities of opioids, Xanax, and Soma, often in combination.
- From 2009 to 2012, MCP filled thousands of prescriptions from AMARC, which accounted for 83% of all prescriptions filled by MCP and more than 90% of its gross sales.
- AMARC's owners and doctors often referred patients to MCP, especially after other local pharmacies began refusing to fill AMARC's prescriptions.
- MCP operated as a cash-only business for controlled substance prescriptions and charged prices significantly higher than other pharmacies.
- Iriele, whose pharmacist license had been revoked in 2007 for filling forged prescriptions, was present at MCP, handled paperwork, rang up customers, and was identified by two customers as having filled their prescriptions.
- To meet demand from AMARC patients, MCP purchased opioids in such high volumes that it became the top purchaser of oxycodone in its zip code and, for one year, the top purchaser in the entire state of Georgia.
- During a search of Iriele’s home, investigators seized a handwritten ledger detailing financial transactions related to laundering MCP's money.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Donatus Iriele on ten counts, including conspiracy to dispense controlled substances, aiding and abetting the dispensing of controlled substances, and money laundering.
- Iriele pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- During the trial, the district court permitted a law enforcement agent to testify as a lay witness that a handwritten ledger was in Iriele's handwriting, over Iriele's objection.
- The jury found Iriele guilty on all ten counts.
- The district court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Iriele to 240 months in prison.
- Iriele, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the agent's handwriting testimony.
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 a law enforcement officer's familiarity with a defendant's handwriting, acquired during the course of a criminal investigation, constitute familiarity 'acquired for the current litigation' under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(2), thereby barring the officer from offering lay opinion testimony to identify the handwriting at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Ed Carnes
No. A law enforcement officer's familiarity with a defendant's handwriting acquired during a criminal investigation is not considered to be 'acquired for the current litigation' under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(2). The court reasoned that the rule's limitation is designed to prevent lay witnesses from making a 'one-shot comparison' of handwriting samples solely for the purpose of testifying, which would usurp the role of a qualified expert. An investigator who becomes familiar with a defendant's handwriting while trying to solve a crime is different; this familiarity is gained for a legitimate investigative purpose, not for litigation itself. The court aligned its holding with the First, Second, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits, distinguishing between gaining familiarity to investigate a crime and gaining it solely to offer testimony at trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(2) within the Eleventh Circuit, creating a clear precedent that allows law enforcement witnesses to provide lay opinion testimony on handwriting authentication. By distinguishing between investigative purposes and litigation-specific preparation, the court provides prosecutors with a practical tool to authenticate documents without invariably needing to retain a forensic handwriting expert. This ruling streamlines the presentation of evidence in cases involving handwritten documents and aligns the Eleventh Circuit with the majority of federal circuits that have addressed this issue.
