Federal Evidence Review

State court certified copies of computer printouts of entries reflecting the defendant’s prior criminal convictions was presumptively reliable under FRE 803(8); the mere possibility of error in the computer records was insufficient to challenge their reliability, in United States v. Carter, 591 F.3d 656 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 15, 2010) (No. 08-3009)

In the case, defendant Carter pled guilty to five counts of bank robbery. During his sentencing hearing, the court considered state court computer records reflecting four theft convictions. The defendant claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the prior state court theft convictions and, consequently, his criminal history was overstated. The government provided state court certified copies of computer “printouts of entries from the District Court of Maryland Criminal System Inquiry Charge/Disposition Display database” to confirm the prior convictions. Carter, _ F.3d at _. The court rejected the defense claim that “the possibility of data-entry errors rendered the computer records inherently unreliable” and that a “a copy of the ‘actual court jacket’ for each proceeding” was required. The defendant declined the court’s offer to continue the sentencing hearing to provide contrary evidence. The defendant was sentenced to serve 150 months in prison, which was based on the prior state court convictions.

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the admission of the certified state court computer records which were “presumptively reliable” under FRE 803(8). The circuit noted that “similar certified state court records” had been deemed “sufficiently reliable to support a finding of a prior conviction at sentencing,” including in the following cases:

• United States v. Zuniga-Chavez, 464 F.3d 1199, 1203-04 (10th Cir. 2006) (“certified docket sheet evidencing Defendant’s conviction for receiving stolen property is proper evidence of that conviction” and “certified copy of the abstract judgment suffices to prove Defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana for sale”)

• United States v. Thompson, 274 F.App’x 453, 455 (6th Cir. 2008) (admitting “two-page computer printout” or prior state court guilty plea which was “certified by the deputy clerk of North Carolina’s Superior Court of Mecklenburg County”)

• United States v. Felix, 561 F.3d 1036, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that an uncertified state court conviction computer printout was sufficiently reliable; “our determination that the district court properly relied on the computer printouts, coupled with Felix’s failure to present any evidence on the issue, rebuts his assertion on appeal that he was not convicted in 1999”)

• United States v. Cousin, 219 F.App’x 190, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (“In the Presentence Investigation Report, the assigned Probation Officer examined computerized court records and determined that Cousin had two prior juvenile adjudications…. [T]he District Court’s careful analysis of the computerized records more than meets the preponderance threshold.”)

• United States v. Esparza-Varela, 106 F.App’x 1, 4 (10th Cir. 2004) (computer printouts were “sufficiently reliable” to establish prior convictions since the printouts “contain[ed] similar information to that found on a docket sheet”)

The defendant did not cite to any contrary case and the circuit could not find one. The mere suggestion that the computer records were unreliable was insufficient. As the circuit explained:

“We recognize the possibility of human error in data entry. But the mere possibility of error — the lynchpin of Carter’s argument — does not warrant the conclusion that these records, maintained and certified by a state court, are inherently unreliable. See Thompson, 274 F.App’x at 455 (noting that the defendant’s ‘unsubstantiated aspersions’ do not discredit certified database records of a state court). Absent evidence of inaccuracy or unreliability, the Maryland state courts’ certified computer records are sufficient to prove a prior conviction at sentencing. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Carter’s criminal history included the prior Maryland convictions. This is not to say certified computer records of conviction are irrefutable. A defendant must have the opportunity to contest their accuracy. See United States v. Booze, 108 F.3d 378, 381 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Here, the district court afforded Carter this chance, but he declined.”

Carter, 591 F.3d at 659.

On appeal, the defendant noted one discrepancy between the computer record on one theft conviction and the presentence report, which indicated a shorter sentence. The circuit noted that “[t]his single alleged inaccuracy does not introduce clear error into the district court’s conclusion that these records were reliable evidence of prior convictions.” Carter, 591 F.3d at 659-60 (footnote omitted). The fact that the computer records provided truncated information was also unavailing since it contained the essential information to determine the defendant’s criminal history. The certified state court computer records were sufficient to support his prior convictions.

The Carter case demonstrates the presumption afforded to public records. It also shows that a challenge to computer records must be predicated on more than speculative contentions. This argument has been rejected with other electronic evidence. See Admitting E-mail Evidence.