United States v. Henry Anekwu
695 F.3d 967
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Anekwu was convicted in a three-day jury trial of multiple counts of mail, wire, and telemarketing fraud against the elderly.
- The Government introduced foreign public and business records with certificates of authentication under 18 U.S.C. § 3505 and FRE 803/902.
- Anekwu moved in limine to exclude foreign records; the district court admitted them with certificates but no authenticating witness.
- The defense challenged Confrontation Clause implications and later appellate review applied plain error standard.
- The district court also admitted a chart of bank records (summary under FRE 1006) and related testimony, with limiting instructions.
- Post-trial, the district court sentenced Anekwu to concurrent 78-month and 108-month terms, with restitution of $510,840.75.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause—admission of foreign records via certificates | Anekwu objected on Confrontation Clause grounds; certificates suffice under 3505 | Foreign records should be excluded if testimonial or unreliable | No plain error; certificates admissible as non-testimonial corroboration |
| Voir dire on racial/ethnic prejudice | Defense asked for voir dire on race/nationality to test bias | Race/nationality could influence impartiality | No abuse of discretion; district court did not abuse by not asking the proposed questions |
| Admissibility of the summary chart and underlying bank records | Chart aided understanding; underlying records admissible | Whether charts themselves are proper evidence | No abuse of discretion; underlying records authenticated and limiting instruction given |
| Informant credibility instruction | Informant credibility instruction warranted given Chipere’s potential bias | Accomplice instruction sufficed; add-on instruction unnecessary | No abuse of discretion; accomplice instruction plus cross-examination/closing arguments adequate |
| Jury instruction in response to co-schemer question | Need precise guidance on co-schemer liability | Answer could be yes or no; instructions consistent with Stapleton | Not plainly erroneous; district court’s response permissible under Stapleton |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2011) (testimonial certificates; confrontation concerns when used as evidence against a defendant)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (forensic reports as testimonial; cautions on certificates used as evidence)
- United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (routine domestic public-record certifications not testimonial)
- United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2007) (certifications of foreign records; admissibility under 3505/803)
- Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981) (voir dire and prejudice considerations for impartial juries)
- United States v. Stapleton, 293 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (co-schemer liability instructions compatible with due process)