United States v. Ernest Franklin Alexander
1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6689, 326 F.2d 736 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Best Evidence Rule requires that to prove the terms of a writing, the original document must be produced unless it is shown to be unavailable without serious fault of the proponent; secondary evidence, such as oral testimony or a copy, is inadmissible if the terms are material to the case and the original is not produced and accounted for.
Facts:
- On February 4, 1963, two Greenville County Sheriff's deputies, responding to a tip, located Ernest Franklin Alexander and Robinson walking on Furman Road.
- Robinson attempted to flee but was apprehended, and a check, not involved in this case, was taken from his person.
- While Alexander was seated in the sheriff's car, Deputy McCall observed him drop or throw a check out of the car.
- McCall retrieved this check and subsequently turned it over to government postal inspector McClure.
- Mrs. Sammie W. Woodall, a widow living approximately three-quarters of a mile from the apprehension site, regularly received a $106.20 Social Security check by United States mail on the third day of each month, or the fourth if the third fell on a Sunday.
- On Monday, February 4, 1963, Mrs. Woodall left her home in the morning and upon her return in the afternoon, the Social Security check she was expecting was not in her mailbox.
- A check payable to Mrs. Woodall in the amount of $106.20 was subsequently delivered to her by the postal inspector, and she cashed it at a store.
- Mrs. Woodall testified that she had never given any check to Ernest Franklin Alexander.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest Franklin Alexander and Robinson were charged in a two-count indictment with violations of laws relating to the postal service.
- Alexander entered a plea of not guilty to both counts and was tried alone before a jury.
- The trial court granted Alexander's motion to dismiss the first count as to him.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the second count against Alexander.
- Alexander appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging the admission of certain evidence.
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 the admission of secondary evidence (a typed copy and oral testimony) regarding the specific terms of a stolen Treasury check, without producing the original check or adequately explaining its absence, violate the Best Evidence Rule when those terms are material to establishing the identity of the check and its connection to the charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Boreman, Circuit Judge
Yes, the admission of secondary evidence regarding the specific terms of a stolen Treasury check, without producing the original or adequately explaining its absence, violates the Best Evidence Rule when those terms are material to establishing the identity of the check and its connection to the charged offense. The court reasoned that the Best Evidence Rule requires the production of an original writing when its terms are material to the case, as secondary evidence like copies and oral testimony introduces significant risks of error, faulty recollection, or willful misrepresentation. In this case, the Government's primary purpose in offering the evidence was not merely to identify the check as a generic physical object, but to establish its precise terms (e.g., payee, amount, serial number). This specificity was crucial because the identity of the check could only be established by proving its terms, which were vitally material to connecting Alexander's possession of the check to the offense charged, particularly that it was the specific check stolen from Mrs. Woodall’s mailbox. Since the Government failed to produce the original check or provide a sufficient explanation for its non-production, the admission of the typed copy and oral descriptions of its contents constituted prejudicial error. The court distinguished this case from others where testimony merely identified the existence of a document or generally characterized it without delving into its specific, material terms, emphasizing that the focus here was necessarily on the 'detailed marks of peculiarity' of the check.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Best Evidence Rule, particularly in criminal proceedings where the specific contents of a document are central to proving a material element of the crime. It reinforces that the original document itself is generally required to prove its terms, preventing reliance on less reliable secondary evidence (like copies or oral descriptions) when the original is available but not produced. This decision strengthens safeguards against potential errors in transcription or recollection, which could have substantial legal consequences, especially in cases heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence. Future litigators must demonstrate diligence in producing original documents or providing compelling and faultless reasons for their absence when document contents are material to the case.
