United States v. PETRE, 1:17-cr-00089

Defendant Iulian Petre indicted on multiple firearms, money laundering, and smuggling counts; government sought pretrial authentication of business records by certification under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11).
Government submitted certificates of authenticity for records from Maine Savings FCU, Yahoo!, Google, Gunbroker.com, and UPS, seeking to admit them without live custodian testimony.
Records described to include bank account statements and signature cards; email subscriber and message metadata; Gunbroker purchase/profile data; and UPS shipment records.
Petre objected, arguing the records lacked trustworthiness, some were compiled for litigation, and thus raise Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause concerns under Crawford and the First Circuit’s decision in Cameron.
Government replied that the records are ordinary business records (non‑testimonial), that Cameron is distinguishable, and that any portions not within the business‑records exception are admissible under other hearsay rules or as admissions.
Court denied the government’s motion to admit the records solely by certification, finding Petre raised sufficient, specific trustworthiness and potential Crawford/Cameron issues to require live custodian testimony and in‑camera foundation outside the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility via Rule 803(6)/902(11) certification	Records meet business‑records criteria and may be certified without custodian	Certifications insufficient because specific trustworthiness concerns exist	Denied: certifications alone not allowed given defendant's specific objections
Trustworthiness of records	Generally reliable as regularly kept business records	Some entries (e.g., user‑provided data, profile info) are unverified or compiled for trial, undermining reliability	Court found defendant raised sufficient doubts to shift burden and require custodian testimony
Confrontation Clause (Crawford) applicability	Business records are non‑testimonial and thus outside Crawford	Some records were prepared for litigation or by third‑party ISPs (per Cameron) and may be testimonial	Court reserved on merits; held foundation and Crawford issues to be addressed with actual records and custodian testimony outside jury presence
Scope of admissible content (admissions/effect on listener)	Portions not within business‑records hearsay exception can be admitted under other rules (e.g., admissions)	Contends such portions require verification and custodian to establish provenance	Court will evaluate specific items at trial after custodian testimony; no pretrial blanket admission granted

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements absent prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2012) (ISP‑generated reports can be testimonial and subject to Crawford)
Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (computerized IRS records admissible under business‑records exception)
United States v. McGill, 953 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1992) (bank records admissible as business records)