Legal Cyber Academy
Case law repository

United States v. Brinson

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Federal circuit court)
Decided
2014
Citation
772 F.3d 1314 (10th Cir. 2014)
Standard applied
FRE 902(11) certification and the Confrontation Clause
Evidence or expert admittedAuthentication
Read the full opinion772 F.3d 1314 (10th Cir. 2014) · full text on CourtListener

What the court held

Admitting a certificate authenticating debit-card records under Rule 902(11) did not violate the Confrontation Clause, because the certificate was not testimonial: it was prepared to authenticate records rather than to prove a fact at trial. No cross-examination of the certifying custodian was required.

Why

Following its earlier decision on telephone records, the court reasoned that a document whose purpose is merely to establish that records are what they appear to be does not carry the testimonial character that triggers confrontation rights, even though it was created for use in litigation. The distinction is between authenticating a record and asserting a substantive fact about the defendant.

Our reading — not the court’s words

Why this matters in practice

This is the case that makes certification-based authentication practically usable in criminal cases, and the same reasoning underpins Rules 902(13) and 902(14) for machine-generated records and hash-verified copies. The consequence for an examiner is that a properly drafted certification can replace live testimony about the copying process — provided it certifies process and not conclusions. A certificate that strays into opinion about what the data means invites exactly the confrontation objection this case rejects.

This paragraph is Legal Cyber Academy’s editorial assessment of the decision’s practical importance. The court said none of it. For what the court actually said, read the opinion.

Additional detail

Tags: Rule 902(11) · Confrontation Clause · certification · records custodian

Cited 55times in CourtListener’s corpus at the time this entry was compiled. Treat it as a rough measure of influence, not of correctness.

Summarised from the opinion as retrieved from CourtListener. Reference material, not legal advice. Back to the repository.