United States v. Hampton
464 F.3d 687 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a photocopy of a document is admissible as a duplicate to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or it would be unfair to admit the duplicate. The general authentication requirement can be satisfied by testimony from a witness with knowledge that the copy is what it purports to be.
Facts:
- A defendant was accused of robbing ten banks and attempting to rob an eleventh.
- A critical element of the federal crime was that the banks were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
- At trial, the government introduced photocopies of the FDIC insurance certificates for each bank to prove their insured status.
- The certificates shown in the photocopies were all issued on dates prior to the robberies.
- For each bank, an employee, typically a teller, testified.
- The employees testified that the photocopies shown in court were true copies of the insurance certificates displayed in their respective banks.
- The employees also testified that their banks were currently insured at the time of the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was prosecuted by the United States government in federal district court.
- The defendant's counsel refused to stipulate that the banks were federally insured, putting the government to its proof at trial.
- The trial judge admitted photocopies of the banks' FDIC certificates into evidence over the defendant's objection.
- A jury convicted the defendant of ten bank robberies and related crimes.
- The defendant appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the photocopies.
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 1003 permit the admission of photocopies of FDIC certificates to prove a bank's federally insured status when authenticated by bank employees, even if the copies do not qualify as self-authenticating under Rule 902?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 1003 permits the admission of photocopies (duplicates) to the same extent as originals unless there is a genuine question of authenticity. The court rejected the argument that the copies had to meet the stricter standards for self-authentication of sealed documents under Rule 902(1), noting that a copy of a seal is not difficult to forge, unlike an original seal. The court also found that the requirements for certified copies of public records under Rule 1005 were not met. Instead, the court relied on the more general principles of Federal Rules of Evidence 901(a) and 1003. Rule 901(a) allows authentication by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what its proponent claims. Here, the testimony of bank employees recognizing the photocopies as accurate depictions of the certificates in their banks satisfied this requirement. Under Rule 1003, these photocopies, as duplicates, were admissible unless the defendant raised a 'genuine question' as to the original's authenticity. The defendant's suggestion that the copies were forgeries was deemed 'so improbable' without any supporting evidence that it failed to meet this standard.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the specific authentication rules, like Rule 902 for sealed documents, are not the exclusive means of admitting copies of official records. It affirms the broad applicability of Rule 1003, which favors the admissibility of duplicates, placing the burden on the opposing party to provide some credible evidence of forgery or unfairness to exclude them. The ruling provides prosecutors with a more flexible, though less rigorous, method for proving elements like FDIC-insured status when a stipulation is unavailable. However, the court's commentary also serves as a caution to the government, encouraging more direct and conclusive methods of proof in future cases to avoid similar appellate challenges.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hampton