United States v. Vazquez
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL 21-597 (BAH) |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAVIER ALGREDO VAZQUEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Defendant faces trial on July 17, 2023 on charges of engaging in three conspiracies: conspiring, between around 2011 until September 23, 2021, to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine for importation into the United States; conspiring, in the same time period, to distribute listed methamphetamine precursor chemicals; and conspiring, from around 2018 to September 23 2021, to launder monetary instruments. Indictment, ECF No. 8. The government has moved pre-trial to introduce: (1) shipping records of bulk chemical shipments authenticated by certificates from the relevant shipping companies, (2) evidence of uncharged acts by defendant, including shipments of precursor chemicals for illicit drugs other than methamphetamine and shipments of precursor chemicals seized after the indictment was returned, and (3) certified electronic evidence. Gov't's Mot. in Limine Introduce & Authenticate Evid. (“Gov't's Mot.”), ECF No. 72. For the reasons outlined below, the government's motion is granted.
The government's motion seeks to introduce three types of evidence: business records pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 803(6) and FED. R. EVID. 902(11); evidence that the government argues is intrinsic to the charged conspiracies or, in the alternative, admissible pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 404(b) and 403; and electronic evidence derived from two email addresses used by defendant. Defendant does not dispute the government's third request, which seeks to authenticate electronic records, including subscriber details and contents of emails, “using certifications of custodians of records pursuant to FRE 902(13)” that were produced by Oath Holdings, Inc. in response to search warrants for two email addresses used by defendant. Gov't's Mot. at 18; see generally Def.'s Opp'n to Gov't's Mot. in Limine (“Def.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 87. Accordingly, this portion of the motion is granted as conceded, and resolution of the remaining parts of this motion requires discussion only of the admissibility of the shipping records and other acts evidence, which are addressed seriatim.
The government seeks to introduce “documents related to the purchase and shipping of chemicals during the charged conspiracy.” Gov't's Mot. at 8. Those documents, attached to the government's motion, include bills of lading, sea waybills, and cargo manifests for tonnage amounts of chemical shipments-including methamphetamine precursors acetic acid, citric acid, and methylamine hydrochloride-originating from India, China, and Turkey, and bound for Mexico. See Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1, Shipping Documents, ECF No. 72-1. The government represents that these documents encompass both (1) evidence of “four bulk shipments of chemicals that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine that were seized by U.S. law enforcement authorities during the time period charged,” and (2) evidence of other chemical shipments during the charged conspiracy not seized but that correspond with transactions in defendant's communications and bank records. Gov't's Mot. at 3.[1] The so-called “business records” exception to the rule against hearsay, FED. R. EVID. 803(6), permits the admission of records of regularly conducted activities. To satisfy the exception, the following requirements must be met:
FED. R. EVID. 803(6). FED. R. EVID. 902(11), as referenced in part (D) of the business records exception, permits certificates by records custodians, rather than live testimony, to authenticate records of a regularly conducted activity by certifying that parts (A) through (C) of the business records exception are met. United States v Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319, 324-25 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The custodian “need not have personal knowledge of the actual creation of the document.” United States v. Fahnbulleh, 752 F.3d 470, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Adefehinti, 510 F.3d at 325).
The shipping documents attached to the government's motion are admissible under FED. R. EVID. 803(6).[2] The records, provided by three shipping companies, were accompanied by certificates of authenticity by records custodians from each company certifying the contents of the relevant documents. See Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1 at 1 (“Maersk Certificate of Authenticity”), ECF No. 72-1; Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1 at 14 (“MSC Certificate of Authenticity”), ECF No. 72-1; Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1 at 30 (“Hamburg Certificate of Authenticity”), ECF No. 72-1. Each signed certificate attests that: (a) the attached records “were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matter set forth, by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters,” (b) the records were kept in the “ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity,” and (c) those records were made “as a regular practice,” satisfying the requirements of FED. R. EVID. 902(11), and consequently, FED. R. EVID. 803(6)(A)-(D). See Maersk Certificate of Authenticity; MSC Certificate of Authenticity; Hamburg Certificate of Authenticity.
Defendant urges that he is “unable to stipulate as to the authenticity of the ‘shipping documents'” because “it remains unclear under what circumstances the seizures occurred in the United States.” Def.'s Opp'n at 2. On this point, defendant says that the government has provided conflicting explanations for the four chemical shipment seizures by U.S. authorities- either that the ships were hailed to American ports for inspection based on triggering information, or that they made a “‘routine' stop in the United States.” Id. at 2-3. In reply, the government clarified that both explanations were true as to different shipments: some were scheduled to stop at a U.S. port, and others were hailed by Homeland Security Investigations based on triggering information and then voluntarily complied. Gov't's Reply at 2-3, ECF No. 97. Regardless, defendant's gripe is a red herring, because the manner of the shipments' seizure does not impugn the trustworthiness of the shipping documents themselves, which were subsequently requested from the shipping companies and not physically obtained during the shipment seizures. Gov't's Reply at 3. See FED. R. EVID. 803(6)(E).
At the same time, though overcoming the hearsay and authentication hurdles, the government must still lay a foundation for the relevance of each document before such evidence is introduced at trial. The government's motion does not adequately explain the relevance of each shipping document to the charges defendant faces.[3]For example, the government will have to produce evidence linking defendant to the company MB Barter, which is the consignee for the four seized shipments. See supra n.1; see also, e.g., Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1 at 17, Cargo Manifest, Maersk Seville, ECF No. 72-1 (); Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1 at 31, Bill of Lading, APL Charleston, ECF No. 72-1 (). Additionally, although the government represents that “[t]he shipping documents the Government intends to introduce list the Defendant's U.S.-based company, Pro Chemie New York Inc....or Carlos [Algredo Vazquez]'s Mexico-based company, MB Barter & Trading Mexico SE DE CV,” Gov't's Mot. at 4, the name of neither company appears on certain documents the government seeks to admit. See, e.g., Gov't's Mot., Ex. 1 at 22, Bill of Lading, MSC Jeanne, ECF No. 72-1 (). The government will have to establish the relevance of those shipments in terms of their linkage to defendant or the charged conspiracies in some way.
The government also moves to introduce evidence “not encompassed by the indictment,” namely: shipments of methamphetamine precursor chemicals seized post-indictment as well as shipments of precursor chemicals for drugs other than methamphetamine that occurred concurrently with the methamphetamine conspiracies. Gov't's Mot. at 10-11. Evidence of the post-indictment activity would include expert testimony and shipping documents regarding two shipments of acetic acid, a methamphetamine precursor chemical, seized on December 14, 2021 and January 10, 2022, respectively. Id. In addition, the government seeks to introduce evidence that, during the course of the charged drug conspiracies, defendant was engaged in distributing chemicals to manufacture other illicit drugs, including fentanyl, phencyclidine (PCP), and cocaine, in the form of the following: (1) expert testimony and shipping documents allegedly linking defendant to four seized shipments of fentanyl precursor chemicals; and (2) invoices derived from defendant's email accounts revealing that he ordered other chemicals, including a chemical precursor for fentanyl, a chemical used in the production of PCP,...
To continue reading
Request your trial