Court Opinion 8-2 United States V. Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.C.D.C. 2006) [The court considered and rejects an argument that the e-mails were self-authenticating under Rule 902.] Because it is not appropriate for these e—mails to be admitted as self-authenticating under Rule 902 ofthe Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court turns to the authentication requirements set forth in Rule 901 The question under Rule 901 is whetherthere is sufficient evidence "to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims," FED.R.EVID. 901(a}7in this case, emails between Mr. Safavian, Mr Abramoff, and other individuals. . For the reasons that follow, the Courtfinds that there is ample evidence for the jury to find that these exhibits are, in fact, eemail exchanges between Mr. Safavian, Mr. Abramoff, and other individuals One method of authentication identified under Rule 901 is to examine the evidence's "distinctive characteristics and the like," including "[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances " FED R EVlD 901(b)(4). Most of the proffered exhibits can be authenticated in this manner. The e-mails in question have many distinctive characteristics, including the actual e-mail addresses containing the "@" symbol, widely known to be part of an e-mail address, and certainly a distinctive mark that identifies the document in question as an e—mail See United States it Siddiqur', 235 FSd 1318, 1322 {11th Cir. 2090). In addition, most ofthe e-mail addresses themselves contain the name of the person connected to the address, such as "abramoffi@gtlaw.com," "David.Satavian@mail.house.gov," or "david.safavian@gsa.gov." See, e.g., Exhibits 101, 105, 106 Frequently these emails contain the name of the sender or reCipient in the bodies of the email, in the signature blocks at the end of the email, in the "To " and "From:" headings, and by signature ofthe sender. The contents ofthe eemails also authenticate them as being from the purported sender and to the purported recipient containing as they do discussions of various identifiable matters, such as Mr. Safavian's work at the General Services Administration ("GSA"), Mr. Abramoff's work as a lobbyist, Mr Abramoffs restaurant, Signatures, and various other personal and professmnal matters Those e-mails that are not clearly identifiable on their own can be authenticated under Rule 901(b)(3), which states that such evidence may be authenticated by comparison by the trier of fact (the jury) with "specimens which have been [othentvise] authenticated"—in this case, those e—mails that already have been independently authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4) For instance, certain e-rnails contain the address "MerrittDC@aol.com" With no further indication of what person uses that email address either through the contents or in the email heading itself See, 9.92, Exhibit 134. This email address on its own does not clearly demonstrate who was the sender or receiver using that address. When these emails are examined alongside Exhibit 100 (which the Court finds is authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4) by its distinctive characteristics), however, it becomes clear that MerrittDC@aol.com was an address used by the defendant Exhibit 100 is also an email sent from that address, but the signature within the email gives the defendant's name and the name of his business, Janus—Merritt Strategies, LL C, located in Washington, DC. (as well as other information, such as the business' address, telephone and fax numbers), thereby connecting the defendant to that e—mail address and clarifying the meaning of both "Merritt" and "DC" in it. The comparison ofthose e—mails containing MerrittDC@aol.com with Exhibit 100 thereby can provide thejury With a sufficient basis to find that these two exhibits are what they purport to be-that is, e—mails to or from Mr. SafaVian. The Court Will not perform this exerCise with respect to each exhibit Suffice it to say that the Court has examined each of these e—mails and found that all those that the Court is admitting in whole or in part meet the requirements for authentication under Rule 901

 Questions 

1. What "distinctive characteristics" did the court use to determine that there was sufficient evidence of authenticny to allow the emails to be offered into evidence? 

2. What pOints of comparison did the court find between the e—mails authenticated by distinctive characteristics and those that could not be authenticated in that way?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 The court determined that the distinctive characteristics used for authenti... View the full answer