United States v. Rachel Siders
712 F. App'x 601
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rachel Siders was convicted by a jury of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), making a false statement to a federally insured bank (18 U.S.C. § 1014), and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)) arising from a mortgage-fraud/identity-theft scheme.
- The government introduced loan files (HELOC applications) for two properties (Highland Park Drive and Mariposa Avenue); conviction rested on Highland Park Drive counts (jury deadlocked on Mariposa counts).
- The government moved in limine to admit the loan files using Rule 902(11) corporate custodian certifications and to treat the files as business records under Rule 803(6). The district court granted the motion.
- On appeal Siders challenged admission of the Highland Park Drive records, raising three objections: (1) the Rule 902(11) custodians lacked familiarity with document creation/preservation; (2) documents were created by co-conspirators, not regular employees; and (3) records contained falsehoods and thus lacked trustworthiness/authenticity as business records.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion (interpretation of the Rules de novo) and evaluated whether the records were admissible under any applicable rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 902(11)/803(6): custodians' familiarity | Siders: custodians who certified the records (JPMorgan Chase) lacked personal knowledge of their creation/preservation so certification insufficient | Govt: JPMorgan Chase is successor to Washington Mutual; custodian declaration established receipt, processing, and maintenance in regular course | Court: Certification by corporate custodian satisfied Rule 902(11) and the Rule 803(6) foundational requirements; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether records created by co-conspirators are business records | Siders: documents prepared by co-conspirators, not business employees, so not admissible as business records | Govt: even if prepared by third parties, records received and maintained in regular course qualify; co-conspirators testified about preparation and authenticated documents | Court: Irrelevant that third parties prepared documents so long as received/maintained in regular course; authenticated by testimony; admissible |
| Effect of false statements in records on trustworthiness | Siders: falsity of the records undermines their authenticity and trustworthiness for business-record admission | Govt: falsity does not affect how records were received/maintained; statements offered not for truth but as evidence of fraud; false entries can be admissible | Court: Statements’ falsity does not preclude business-record status; admissible because offered for nonhearsay purpose and did not undermine trustworthiness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (harmless-error standard for unrelated admitted evidence)
- United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Urena, 659 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of evidentiary-rule interpretation)
- United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (records admissible if admissible under any provision)
- United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir. 1993) (one entity may receive and maintain documents created by third parties in regular course)
- United States v. Ray, 930 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1991) (business records may include nonhearsay statements not made under business duty)
- United States v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (statements in furtherance of an enterprise admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))