United States v. McMinn
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
United States v. McMinn
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1861
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MCMINN,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Matthew J. Lahey and McLaughlin, Hemeon & Lahey, P.A. on brief _________________ __________________________________
for appellant.
Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Jean B. Weld, ________________ ______________
Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition
for appellee.
____________________
January 14, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. After careful review of the parties' __________
briefs and the record, we grant the government's motion for
summary disposition and dispense with oral argument, as this
appeal presents no substantial question. See 1st Cir. Loc. ___
R. 27.1.
We find no merit in defendant's challenge to the
district court's ruling regarding authentication of the empty
soda bottle. That ruling was consistent with the
requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 901, and it was well within the
district court's discretion in such evidentiary matters.
Particularly, in light of all the circumstances, the
detective's testimony comparing the markings on the bottle
with those shown in the photograph was adequate to support
admission of the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). ___
We reject defendant's argument, which is
unsupported by citation to any relevant authority, that the
district court was required to make some additional,
independent comparison of the bottle and the photograph. The
district court adequately fulfilled its role under Fed. R.
Evid. 901 when it determined that the detective's comparison
was "reasonably reliable" and the jury could believe it or
not, and that the bottle with its glue markings was "not
entirely fungible" and had some "character, weak admittedly,
but sufficient so the jury could say it is the same bottle."
-2-
We likewise reject defendant's unsupported argument that this
court is required to make its own comparison de novo.
Affirmed. ________
-3-
Reference
- Status
- Published