United States v. Betsy Hillis
656 F. App'x 222
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hillis was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess/distribute pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to make methamphetamine; sentenced to 120 months concurrent.
- Government introduced pharmacy pseudoephedrine purchase records (name, address, driver’s license) from multiple pharmacies; records included certificates of authentication.
- Law-enforcement and pharmacy witnesses testified about pharmacy procedures requiring photo ID checks and entry of purchaser data; ATF agent linked TMIS pharmacy records to Hillis’s bank records and co‑defendants’ purchases, showing overlapping patterns.
- Several co‑defendants testified that Hillis purchased pseudoephedrine for use in meth manufacture, traded pills for meth, and aided preparation; Hillis testified she used pseudoephedrine for allergies and suggested her driver’s license had been duplicated/used by others.
- District court admitted the pharmacy records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and found them nontestimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes; this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Hillis’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 803(6) | Records were prepared primarily for law‑enforcement purposes, supplied by outsiders, untrustworthy, and thus not business records | Records were kept in ordinary course of pharmacies’ regulated sales, verified by ID checks, certified, and properly foundational | Records are admissible as business records; pharmacies’ regulatory duty and verification practices satisfy Rule 803(6) |
| Confrontation Clause | Records are testimonial because prepared for law‑enforcement/prosecution and thus require confrontation | Records are non‑testimonial business/public records created for regulatory/commercial purposes, not primarily to produce evidence for trial | Records are non‑testimonial; admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause |
| Trustworthiness (specific challenge) | Alleged theft/ misuse of Hillis’s license rendered records unreliable | Any dispute about identity goes to weight; no showing of systemic untrustworthiness; verification procedures support reliability | No specific, credible showing of untrustworthiness; records admissible and credibility for jury to assess |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Pharmacy records could reflect someone else using Hillis’s ID; confirmed purchases were minimal and consistent with allergies; co‑defendants unreliable | Corroborating bank records, purchase timing/patterns, co‑defendant testimony, and physical evidence support conspiracy inference | Evidence—direct and circumstantial—was sufficient for a rational juror to convict; challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2013) (pseudoephedrine purchase logs kept to satisfy regulatory requirements qualify as business records)
- United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2015) (MethCheck/purchase records are non‑testimonial and admissible; employees would not anticipate records’ use at trial)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic affidavits are testimonial when prepared for prosecution)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of lab reports without opportunity for cross‑examination of the analyst)
- Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (documents prepared primarily for litigation or investigatory purposes are not business records)
- United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2009) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial analysis principles)