alleging defendants sent false reports to Inside FERC and NGI; affirming district court’s refusal to overturn jury verdict on false reporting because no evidence that reports were false
How later courts described this case
- alleging defendants sent false reports to Inside FERC and NGI; affirming district court’s refusal to overturn jury verdict on false reporting because no evidence that reports were false
- holding witness was not a qualified witness when she did not have knowledge regarding the actual record keeping procedures of the company
- dismissing false reporting count for lack of evidence, but assuming CEA covered similar false reporting of natural gas
- construing Fed. R.Evid. 803(6)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I would render judgment of conviction on the basis of the jury verdict. The defendant argues for the acquittal, and the panel majority so holds, principally because of the inadmissibility of Exhibit 27 as business record hearsay. The district court admitted Exhibit 27 into evidence, and I see that as no abuse of discretion.
This exhibit was produced by the defendant’s employer in response to the government’s subpoena to deliver the record of its trades. The Commission moved prior *419 to trial requesting waiver by defense to the authenticity of the exhibit, and the court ruled objections were waived.
The Commission’s experienced investigator explained that the practice was for defendant as the trader to transmit his trade data to become the values shown on Exhibit 27. The defendant received the database made from his e-mails, and the database was downloaded into Exhibit 27. While this witness did not have personal knowledge of details of operation of this particular company, there was no evidence disputing this explanation.
There was no contention or evidence from defendant that there was any impropriety or error in the trading values shown in Exhibit 27.
The trial was perfectly fair and the proof of this exhibit was accepted and acceptable. No precedent requires this panel ruling. I regard it as a misuse of the rules of evidence and dissent.