United States v. Mikel Clotaire
963 F.3d 1288
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Mikel and Yvenel Clotaire ran a scheme applying for Florida unemployment benefits using stolen identities; Yvenel (a USPS carrier) intercepted the mailed preloaded debit cards on his route.
- Banks produced ATM surveillance videos showing the person who used the fraudulently issued cards; PNC provided still photos extracted from those tapes.
- Investigators initially misidentified Yvenel from ATM images; later investigation and license-plate/rental records tied the images to Mikel.
- Both brothers were indicted; tried separately and convicted of conspiracy to commit access device fraud, access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
- Mikel appealed, focusing on evidentiary rulings used to prove identity: admissibility/authentication of ATM photos, Confrontation Clause issues, exclusion of emails and cross-examination limits, expert and lay identification testimony, admission of his booking photo, and cumulative error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ATM still photos (business records) | Photos were created for litigation, not regular business practice, so not Rule 803(6) records | Still frames are format extracts of surveillance videos (business records); format change does not create new record | Court: photos admissible as self-authenticating business records under Rule 902(11)/803(6) |
| Confrontation Clause (testimonial hearsay) | Person who extracted/enhanced photos or the certifications are testimonial and the declarant should be confronted | Photos are not "statements"; extractor’s processing is not testimonial; certifications authenticate, not create, records | Court: photos and processing not testimonial; Confrontation Clause not implicated; certifications not testimonial under Melendez-Diaz |
| Authentication via Rule 902(11) certifications | Certifications (and 901) violated Sixth Amendment/are testimonial | Certifications merely authenticate existing records; permissible under Melendez-Diaz | Court: certifications admissible and non-testimonial |
| Exclusion of emails and limits on cross-examining misidentification | Defense should have been allowed to admit emails (re: image distortion, alternate phone number) and probe supervisor’s background and grand jury/ warrant details | Emails were hearsay when offered substantively; cross-exam limits were reasonable and non-prejudicial; defense could have subpoenaed declarants | Court: exclusion and limits were within discretion; defense failed to preserve or develop alternate impeachment uses at trial |
| Broadhurst testimony on photos and camera distortion (expert) | Testimony on lens distortions was expert testimony that required Daubert gatekeeping and notice | Broadhurst had prior CCTV training/experience; testimony tied to his experience; no Daubert objection or Rule 16 request had been made | Court: reviewed for plain error and found none—admission proper and notice not required because defendant did not request expert disclosures |
| Lay identification by USPS supervisor (Giordano) | Supervisor lacked sufficient basis to rule out Yvenel from photos | Supervisor had repeated personal interactions/supervisory knowledge—better positioned than jurors to exclude Yvenel | Court: lay ID admissible; witness had adequate basis to make exclusionary identification |
| Admission of booking (mug) photo under Rule 403/Hines | Mug shot prejudicial; suggested prior criminality and should have been excluded | Identity was central; mug shot contemporaneous and probative; court sanitized and stipulated date to avoid implying prior record; admissibility governed by Hines factors | Court: mug shot admissible—Hines prerequisites satisfied (need, no implication of prior record, non-sensational introduction) |
| Cumulative error | Combined evidentiary rulings deprived Mikel of a fair trial | No reversible errors identified individually, so no cumulative error | Court: no cumulative error; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2015) (plain-error standard for unpreserved objections)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (defining testimonial hearsay for Confrontation Clause)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (distinguishing authentication from testimonial creation of records)
- United States v. Hernandez, 913 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir. 1990) (electronic records/printouts admissible as business records)
- United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994) (business records and computer printouts)
- United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 2009) (treating database as business record; selecting relevant portions)
- United States v. Lamons, 532 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2008) (photos/pictures are not testimonial statements for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- United States v. Hines, 955 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1992) (three-part test for admissibility of mug shots)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court’s gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (lay testimony may rest on particularized experience)