United States v. Duffy - 454 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1972)

Rule:

When the disputed evidence is an object bearing a mark or inscription, and is, therefore, a chattel and a writing, the trial judge has discretion to treat the evidence as a chattel or as a writing. In reaching his decision, the trial judge should consider the policy consideration behind the best evidence rule.

Facts:

Appellant James H. Duffy was employed in the body shop of an automobile dealership in Florida, where a stolen vehicle was in the body shop for repair. The vehicle disappeared and was found in California. Appellant was convicted of transporting a motor vehicle in interstate commerce knowing it to have been stolen in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2312. The trial court overruled appellant's objection to the admission of testimony about a shirt found in the trunk with a laundry mark with the first three letters of appellant's name. The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the admission of the testimony violated the “Best Evidence Rule.” According to his conception of the "Rule", the Government should have been required to produce the shirt itself rather than testimony about the shirt.

Issue:

Did the admission of the testimony regarding the shirt violate the “Best Evidence Rule”?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision and held that the admission of testimony regarding the shirt did not violate the best evidence rule because the rule was applicable only to proof of the contents of a writing, and was not applicable to an object bearing a mark or inscription. The court held that admission of the testimony without requiring production of the shirt was not error because the shirt was not critical to the case, possession of the shirt was not an element of the crime, and appellant was not denied his right to cross-examination. The court held that the jurors witnessing sentencing in an unrelated case was not prejudicial.