United States v. James A. Bray
139 F.3d 1104, 49 Fed. R. Serv. 33, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6770 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 allows for the admission of summaries of voluminous documents as substantive evidence without requiring the admission of the underlying documents, and such summaries generally do not require a limiting instruction that they are not evidence.
Facts:
- James Bray and Robert Owczarzak worked together as postal employees in Bay City, Michigan, for over 20 years and became close friends.
- Sometime in 1988, they began a fraudulent scheme, initially stealing funds collected for postage-due mail.
- After transferring to a Bay City postal substation in 1989, Owczarzak began embezzling money from stamp sales, and clerks' accounts were audited every 120 days.
- To conceal his embezzlement, Owczarzak asked Bray to lend him some of Bray's stamp stock to make his accountability figures match the records.
- Bray subsequently joined the embezzlement scheme, and the two regularly traded stamp stock to cover their periodic audits.
- By January 1995, Bray and Owczarzak together had embezzled approximately $52,000, with about 40% of this amount attributable to Bray.
- A surprise audit of Bray's accounts revealed an $800 overage, which triggered an investigation by postal authorities.
- When Bray later refused to lend Owczarzak stamps for an upcoming audit, Owczarzak confessed the entire scheme to postal authorities, implicating Bray.
- Postal Inspector William Pollard prepared four summary charts (Exhibits 112, 113, 114, and 115) based on daily transaction forms (1412 forms).
- Charts 112 and 113 summarized Bray's and Owczarzak's activities over a two-year period, showing stable sales but increased stamp orders over time.
- Charts 114 and 115 summarized data for the replacement employees over a four-month period, showing basically identical levels of sales and stamp orders.
Procedural Posture:
- James Bray and Robert Owczarzak were indicted in March 1996 for conspiracy to embezzle money, embezzling money, aiding and abetting thereof, and Bray was additionally charged with making a false statement.
- Owczarzak pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and testified as a government witness at Bray's trial.
- Bray was convicted on all counts by a jury in the United States District Court.
- The district court sentenced Bray to 17 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to make restitution.
- Bray appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 district court abuse its discretion by admitting summary exhibits under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 as substantive evidence, without requiring the admission of the underlying voluminous documents and without providing a limiting instruction to the jury that the summaries are not evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, Circuit Judge
No, a district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting summary exhibits under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 as substantive evidence without requiring the admission of the underlying voluminous documents and without providing a limiting instruction. The court affirmed Bray's conviction, clarifying the distinction between Rule 1006 summaries, which are admitted as substantive evidence, and pedagogical devices under Rule 611(a), which are merely illustrative aids. Rule 1006 explicitly states that summaries of voluminous writings may be presented, and that the originals need only be made available, not admitted. Because a Rule 1006 summary is itself the evidence, a limiting instruction that it is not evidence would be inappropriate and contradictory to the Rule's purpose. The court outlined five preconditions for admitting a Rule 1006 summary: 1) the documents must be voluminous; 2) they must be made available to other parties; 3) the underlying documents must be admissible; 4) the summary must be accurate and nonprejudicial; and 5) it must be properly introduced. The court found that Bray failed to properly object to the timeliness of document availability, and any potential prejudice was mitigated by the court's offer to reopen proofs. Furthermore, the court determined that the differing time periods covered by the charts affected evidentiary weight, not admissibility, as the differences were clearly delineated and relevant to the embezzlement theory. The court concluded that the district court's initial mistaken limiting instruction in Bray's favor did not constitute reversible error.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, firmly distinguishing substantive summary evidence from pedagogical aids. It emphasizes that Rule 1006 summaries, when properly introduced, are the evidence, removing any ambiguity regarding the necessity of admitting underlying documents or providing limiting instructions. This precedent provides clear guidance for trial courts on how to handle voluminous evidence, reducing potential for appeals based on perceived errors in admitting summaries, and ensuring consistency in how such evidence is treated by juries.
