Federal Evidence Review

In firearms prosecution, state firearm record computer printouts were authenticated as public records, in United States v. Meienberg, 263 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2001)

As with other evidence, authentication is a precondition to admitting computer records. Unless the proponent can show under FRE 901(a) “that the matter in question is what its proponent claims,” the evidence is inadmissible. A Tenth Circuit case demonstrated the authentication of computer records maintained by a government agency in a firearms case.

Defendant Meienberg, a firearm dealer, was prosecuted for unlawfully selling firearms, including firearm sales to an underage person and in violation of certain state law requirements. One state law requirement was for firearm dealers to contact the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (the “Bureau”) to conduct “an instant background check on the potential purchaser and, if the purchaser was approved, dealers were required to record the approval number for the transaction.” Meienberg, 263 F.3d at 1180. The government claimed the defendant failed to contact the state for required instant background checks but used false approval numbers for the transactions. At trial, government witnesses testified about the process in which records were maintained and computerized state records were introduced indicating the approval numbers issued by the state for the defendant’s firearms business. After his conviction, he claimed the trial court erred in admitting “unauthenticated computer printouts into evidence.” Meienberg, 263 F.3d at 1179. The circuit concluded the computer records were properly authenticated under the public records authentication rule, FRE 901(b)(7), which provides:

“Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.”

As the circuit explained:

“The computer printouts reflected the Bureau’s record of approval numbers assigned to Defendant’s firearms business. The government’s witness testified to this fact, thus satisfying the minimal authentication requirement: ‘[The computer printouts are] a record of the transaction[] number[s] issued for [Defendant’s business], all the transactions during each separate exhibit is a month period of transactions issued [by the Bureau to Defendant’s business].’”

Meienberg, 263 F.3d at 1181 (citing FRE 901(b)(7) (providing that a public record can be authenticated by evidence that the record “is from the public office where items of this nature are kept”); see also FRE 901 ACN (note to Subdivision (b), Example 7) (“Public records are regularly authenticated by proof of custody, without more. The example extends the principle to include data stored in computers and similar methods . . . .” (citation omitted))).

The circuit rejected the defense claim that another authentication rule governed the admission of the state computer records, which required proof of an accurate result. Under FRE 901(b)(9), evidence which is the product of a process or system may be authenticated by: “Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.” FRE 901(b)(9). As the circuit noted, “The computer printouts were not the result of a “process or system used to produce a result”; they were merely printouts of preexisting records that happened to be stored on a computer. In any event, the government did offer circumstantial evidence that the computer printouts accurately depicted the approval numbers issued to Defendant’s business.” Meienberg, 263 F.3d at 1181. Finally, any claims by the defendant concerning the accuracy of the records went to the weight of the records and not their admissibility. Meienberg, 263 F.3d at 1181 (citing United States v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Any question as to the accuracy of the printouts, whether resulting from incorrect data entry or the operation of the computer program, as with inaccuracies in any other type of business records, would have affected only the weight of the printouts, not their admissibility.”)).