## Facts

- Craig Lee Childs was investigated for possession of stolen motor vehicles that had crossed a state or United States boundary after being stolen.
- The stolen vehicles were taken from auto dealerships; dealership files contained original paperwork identifying the vehicles (e.g., identifying and transaction documents associated with the cars).
- Investigators linked Childs to the stolen vehicles through documentary records reflecting the vehicles’ identities and disposition.
- The government obtained and used photocopies of certain original dealership documents.
- No evidence showed the photocopies differed from the original documents.
- Childs was indicted in federal court on counts charging possession of stolen motor vehicles transported in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313.
- Before and during trial, Childs contested the government’s use of records (including non-U.S. registration-related records) and objected to the admission of copies rather than originals.
- A jury convicted Childs (on fewer than all charged counts), and the district court imposed a sentence that included a term of imprisonment followed by probation.
- Childs appealed, challenging venue and several evidentiary and trial rulings, including the admission of business records and duplicates and a peremptory strike of a Native American prospective juror.

## Issues

1. Was venue proper in the District of Arizona for § 2313 possession counts when the government’s proof tied the stolen vehicles’ origin and transportation to Arizona but the charged possession was connected to conduct outside the district?
2. Did the district court err by admitting certain records under the business-records exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), based on the foundation and trustworthiness shown at trial?
3. Did the district court violate the best-evidence rules by admitting photocopy duplicates of vehicle-related documents instead of originals under Fed. R. Evid. 1003?
4. Did the government improperly rely on foreign law at trial without providing reasonable notice?
5. Did alleged prosecutorial misconduct during plea negotiations require reversal?
6. Did the government’s peremptory strike of a Native American prospective juror violate Batson v. Kentucky?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction(s) and sentence.
- Venue in the District of Arizona was proper under the continuing-offense venue statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), because the government showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the offense began, continued, or was completed in Arizona.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged records as business records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) where the testimony established routine creation/maintenance and no showing established untrustworthiness in the recordkeeping process.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photocopy duplicates under Fed. R. Evid. 1003 because there was no genuine question about the originals’ authenticity and no showing that admitting the duplicates was unfair, particularly where nothing indicated the copies differed from the originals.
- Any objection based on lack of notice regarding foreign law did not justify reversal because no prejudicial error affecting substantial rights was shown.
- The plea-negotiation misconduct claim did not warrant relief because the record did not show misconduct and resulting prejudice sufficient to overturn the judgment.
- The Batson claim failed because the prosecutor offered a race-neutral reason for the strike and the district court’s finding of no purposeful discrimination was not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- Venue: The government must prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence, and for continuing offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), venue lies in any district where the offense was begun, continued, or completed; § 2313 offenses may be tried where the theft/transportation connection to the district is shown even if later possession is elsewhere.
- Business records (Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)): Records kept in the ordinary course of a business or official activity may be admitted when a qualified witness supplies an adequate foundation and the method or circumstances of preparation do not show lack of trustworthiness; disputes suggesting a defendant injected false information generally go to weight unless they show the recordkeeping process itself is unreliable.
- Duplicates (Fed. R. Evid. 1003): A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or admission of the duplicate would be unfair; absent evidence that a photocopy differs from the original, admission is ordinarily proper.
- Foreign law notice: A complaint about use of foreign law without reasonable notice warrants relief only upon a showing of prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
- Plea-negotiation misconduct: Reversal requires misconduct and prejudice sufficient to affect the fairness of the proceedings.
- Batson: Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral explanation; the trial court’s determination on purposeful discrimination is reviewed deferentially and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

United States v. Childs affirmed federal stolen-vehicle possession convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2313, holding that venue was proper in Arizona for a continuing offense and that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting business records and photocopy duplicates where no meaningful authenticity or unfairness showing was made, while also rejecting claims based on foreign-law notice, plea negotiations, and a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike.


United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328 (1993)