United States v. Yeley-Davis
632 F.3d 673, 84 Fed. R. Serv. 723, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1053 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Business records created for the administration of a company's affairs, rather than for litigation purposes, are not testimonial in nature. Therefore, the admission of such records, along with a custodian's written certification of authenticity under Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), does not violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Facts:
- Cynthia Yeley-Davis was allegedly part of a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine with Roman Cortez-Nieto and Adan Torres-Leos.
- During the course of the conspiracy, Yeley-Davis and her co-conspirators communicated via cell phones serviced by Verizon Wireless.
- Verizon Wireless, in the ordinary course of its business, generated and maintained electronic records of phone calls made and received by Yeley-Davis and her co-conspirators.
- These records contained information such as the calling number, the receiving number, and the date and duration of each call.
- Law enforcement officials obtained these cell phone records from Verizon.
- Verizon also provided a written certification from its records custodian stating that the phone records were made and kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity.
- A notebook containing Yeley-Davis's phone number was found in a vehicle belonging to a co-conspirator's brother.
- Photographs of Roman Cortez-Nieto's cell phone showed Yeley-Davis's number listed in the phone's contacts and call logs.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Yeley-Davis was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in a federal indictment filed in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- At trial, the government introduced certified cell phone records over Yeley-Davis's Confrontation Clause objection.
- A jury found Ms. Yeley-Davis guilty.
- The district court sentenced her to a mandatory term of life imprisonment, based on the quantity of drugs and two prior felony drug convictions.
- Ms. Yeley-Davis (appellant) appealed her conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the admission of the phone records violated her Sixth Amendment rights, among other alleged errors.
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 a company's cell phone records, accompanied by a custodian's written certification of authenticity, violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the custodian does not testify at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Paul Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge
No. The admission of the cell phone records and their authenticating certifications does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because neither the records nor the certifications are testimonial. The Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington established that the Confrontation Clause applies only to 'testimonial' statements. Citing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the court reasoned that the crucial distinction is whether a record was created for the administration of an entity’s affairs or for the purpose of establishing some fact at trial. Here, the Verizon phone records were created for Verizon's business purposes, not for litigation, and are therefore non-testimonial. Similarly, the certifications under Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) are also non-testimonial because their purpose is merely to authenticate the underlying records—a procedural step—not to create a new record providing substantive evidence against the defendant.
Analysis:
This decision provides important guidance on the scope of the Confrontation Clause in the digital age, particularly regarding electronically stored business records. It solidifies the principle that business records created for a company's own administrative purposes fall outside the testimonial category defined by Crawford. By holding that Rule 902(11) certifications are also non-testimonial, the court streamlines the process for admitting such evidence, allowing prosecutors to use a sworn declaration instead of requiring live testimony from a records custodian. This ruling distinguishes these routine authentications from the substantive, forensic analysis reports deemed testimonial in Melendez-Diaz, thereby clarifying a critical boundary for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
