United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687

Jackson was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Evidence at trial included wiretap recordings identifying Jackson as the co-conspirator referred to as 'Cory'.
Valdez, a coconspirator, proffered in August 2007 and produced two notebooks containing 78 pages of handwriting linking to Jackson and alleged cocaine transactions.
The notebooks were admitted into evidence through Officer Hight, who interpreted the entries; Valdez did not testify and no authentication by Valdez occurred.
Jackson objected on Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause), hearsay, and authentication grounds; the district court admitted the notebooks and the jury convicted.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the notebooks were not properly authenticated, the Confrontation Clause was violated, and the error was not harmless, though remaining evidence could support a conviction on retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the notebooks properly authenticated as business records?	U.S. contends notebooks are proper business records under Rule 803(6).	Jackson argues Hight is not a qualified authentication witness and records lack trustworthiness.	Not properly authenticated; abuse of discretion.
Do the notebooks constitute coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)?	U.S. asserts statements fall within coconspirator exception.	Jackson contends lack of authentication defeats predicate for coconspirator statements.	Not sufficiently authenticated to qualify as coconspirator statements.
Did admitting the notebooks violate the Confrontation Clause?	U.S. maintains business-records/coconspirator theories negate Confrontation concerns.	Jackson argues testimonial nature of notes violated Crawford’s framework.	Yes, violation under Crawford and Melendez-Diaz.
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	U.S. argues ledgers were central to the verdict and closing argument.	Jackson argues conviction supported by other evidence; harmless error standard applies.	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remand for a new trial.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial evidence and the Confrontation Clause)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (no per se rule that business records are non-testimonial)
United States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2007) (business records generally not testimonial; Rule 803(6) foundation)
United States v. Jimenez Lopez, 873 F.2d 769 (5th Cir.1989) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560 (5th Cir.2006) (testimony and authentication considerations for business records)
United States v. Veytia-Bravo, 603 F.2d 1187 (5th Cir.1979) (trustworthiness requisite for Rule 803(6) authentication)
United States v. Arce, 997 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir.1993) (handwriting and resemblance as basis for authenticity in drug ledgers)