U.S. v. Brown

In prosecution on charge of conspiracy to distribute over 280 grams of crack cocaine, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting govt.’s summary exhibits of various money transactions taken from MoneyGram and Western Union records that govt. claimed showed existence of various wire transfers between defendants and others involved in charged conspiracy. While defendants argued that govt. failed to meet requirements of Rule 803(6) because third-party customers created instant wire transfers, instant records were properly admitted, even though neither Western Union nor MoneyGram required identification from recipients of wire transfers less than $1,000, since other individuals testified about their recollections of actually conducting transactions reflected in records. Moreover, admission of said records did not violate Confrontation Clause since said records did not contain testimonial evidence. Fact that witnesses could not recall every transaction reflected in records did not preclude their admission. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on claim that govt. violated Brady, 373 US 83, where prosecutor: (1) misled defense counsel about who would be best witness to impeach govt.’s confidential informant; and (2) failed to disclose statements made by defendants involving threats to witnesses that govt. intended to use at trial. Govt. is not obligated to assist defense counsel in crafting trial strategy and disclosures required under Brady concern only exculpatory evidence, and defendant’s statements involving threats made to witnesses were not exculpatory in nature.