United States of America v. Patrick M. Vigneau
187 F.3d 70 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Information provided by an outside party, which is then incorporated into a business record, constitutes inadmissible hearsay if offered for its truth. The business records exception does not apply to such 'hearsay within hearsay' unless the outside statement independently qualifies for a hearsay exception or the business has a practice of verifying the information.
Facts:
- From February 1995, Patrick Vigneau and Richard Crandall operated a drug distribution enterprise, moving marijuana and steroids from the Southwest to the Northeastern U.S.
- Vigneau distributed the drugs in the Northeast and was responsible for sending the sales proceeds back to Crandall in Texas.
- Funds were primarily transmitted through Western Union money orders, with the sender's name on the forms sometimes being Vigneau's and other times being false or borrowed names.
- Western Union clerks in 1995 did not require independent proof of a sender's identity when processing these money transfers.
- In September 1995, law enforcement intercepted a package of drugs addressed to a fake name at a residence associated with Vigneau.
- A subsequent search of Vigneau's van parked at the residence yielded incriminating materials, including a pocket organizer that served as a drug ledger.
- After two of their couriers were arrested, Crandall began cooperating with law enforcement and secretly recorded a meeting with Vigneau in a hotel room in December 1995.
- During the recorded meeting, Vigneau discussed continuing the drug operation and mentioned his brother Mark's involvement.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury issued a sealed indictment charging Patrick Vigneau with numerous offenses in the U.S. District Court in May 1997.
- At trial, the government introduced over 70 Western Union money transfer records to support the money laundering charges.
- Vigneau objected to the admission of the sender's identifying information on the forms as inadmissible hearsay.
- The district court overruled the objection, admitting the forms under the business records exception (Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)) and instructing the jury to determine their weight.
- The jury convicted Patrick Vigneau on 21 specific counts of money laundering, each corresponding to a form bearing his name, as well as several other drug and conspiracy charges.
- Patrick Vigneau, the appellant, appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 the sender's identifying information on a Western Union 'To Send Money' form, recorded in the regular course of business, fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule when offered to prove the identity of the sender?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge
No. The sender's identifying information on the forms is inadmissible hearsay to prove the sender's identity. Although the Western Union form itself is a business record, the information supplied by the sender is an out-of-court statement by a third party (an 'outsider') to the business. Under the principle of 'hearsay within hearsay' articulated in cases like Johnson v. Lutz and codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence, such embedded statements are not admissible for their truth merely because they are in a business record. The rationale for the business records exception—regularity and business incentives for accuracy—applies to the clerk's recording of the information, not to the truthfulness of the information provided by the customer. Since Western Union had no procedure to verify the sender's identity, the sender's statement lacks the trustworthiness required for admission, and the government cannot use the name on the form to 'bootstrap' proof of identity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the established limitation on the business records exception known as the 'hearsay within hearsay' or 'double hearsay' problem. It clarifies that the exception's reliability rationale does not extend to unverified information supplied by third parties, even when that information is routinely recorded. The ruling forces prosecutors to provide extrinsic evidence linking a defendant to a transaction rather than relying solely on the face of a business record. This precedent is significant for any case involving records containing third-party information, such as hotel registries, sign-in logs, or police reports with witness statements, by requiring a separate basis for the admissibility of the embedded statement.
