United States v. Towns
718 F.3d 404 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Records kept by a business in the ordinary course of its activities to comply with government regulations qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE 803(6). Such records are considered non-testimonial for Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause purposes if they were not created specifically for use at trial.
Facts:
- In 2009, law enforcement discovered a conspiracy where individuals bought large quantities of pseudoephedrine from multiple pharmacies to manufacture methamphetamine.
- Melvin Towns was identified as an alleged conspirator who purchased pseudoephedrine for the operation.
- Co-conspirators testified that Towns acquired pseudoephedrine pills for their manufacturing operation.
- They also testified that Towns occasionally assisted in tasks related to the 'cooking' of the methamphetamine.
- Towns, a truck driver, testified at his trial and admitted to purchasing large quantities of pseudoephedrine.
- Towns claimed he used the drug to stay awake for his job and denied any involvement in illegal drug manufacturing.
- Towns also disputed the accuracy of the pseudoephedrine purchase logs and denied buying pills in excess of the legal limit.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Towns was charged in a superseding indictment in a federal district court.
- Towns filed a motion in limine to exclude the pseudoephedrine purchase logs from evidence.
- The district court denied the motion.
- At trial, the purchase logs were admitted into evidence over Towns's objection.
- A jury convicted Towns.
- Towns filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The district court sentenced Towns to a mandatory minimum of 120 months imprisonment after denying a safety valve sentence reduction.
- Towns appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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:
Do pseudoephedrine purchase logs, maintained by pharmacies as required by state law, qualify as non-testimonial business records admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) without violating the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Edith H. Jones
Yes. The pseudoephedrine purchase logs qualify as non-testimonial business records admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) and do not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The court reasoned that records a business is required to keep by law are still made in the 'ordinary course of business' if they relate to a regularly conducted activity, like selling medicine. Citing United States v. Veytia-Bravo, the court held that the law enforcement purpose behind the regulation does not disqualify the records. Furthermore, the records were properly admitted through certifying affidavits from the records custodians, which satisfies FRE 803(6)(D), without needing live testimony from each employee. Finally, citing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the court determined the logs were non-testimonial because they were created for regulatory compliance and business administration, not for the primary purpose of establishing a fact at trial, and thus their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Dissenting - Graves
No. The pseudoephedrine logs do not qualify as admissible business records and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause. The dissent argued that the logs lack the trustworthiness required for the business records exception because the pharmacies do not rely on them in their day-to-day affairs; their primary purpose is for law enforcement. Citing Matthews v. United States, the dissent asserted that records compiled solely under sanction of a federal statute, and not used in the business's own operations, are not reliable. Additionally, the dissent contended the records were not properly authenticated because the certifications were generic and did not explain the record-keeping system. Finally, the dissent argued the logs were testimonial because they were 'created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial,' making them inadmissible absent an opportunity for cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in the Fifth Circuit that records mandated by government regulation can be admitted as business records, reinforcing the precedent set in Veytia-Bravo. It clarifies that the motive for keeping a record (e.g., legal compliance) is less important than the fact that it is kept regularly as part of a business's normal activities. The ruling also provides a clear application of the Melendez-Diaz testimonial test, distinguishing between records created for general regulatory purposes (non-testimonial) and those created specifically for an active prosecution (testimonial), thereby guiding future admissibility challenges under the Confrontation Clause.
