## Facts

- James Herbert Duffy worked in the body shop of an automobile dealership in Homestead, Florida.
- A trade-in vehicle sent to the body shop for repair disappeared over a weekend; Duffy also disappeared during the same period.
- The vehicle was later recovered in California.
- A California witness, arrested while in possession of the vehicle, testified that he received the vehicle from Duffy.
- A California police officer recovered the vehicle and, along with an FBI agent, examined its contents and identification information.
- In the trunk were two suitcases; witnesses testified that one contained a white shirt bearing a laundry mark reading “D-U-F.”
- Duffy objected to testimony describing the shirt’s mark, arguing the government had to introduce the shirt itself under the best evidence rule; the shirt was available but not produced.
- The defense stipulated that Duffy’s fingerprints were found on the vehicle’s rear-view mirror, while contending he had merely worked on the car in Florida and later hitchhiked to California.
- A jury convicted Duffy of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce, knowing it was stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312.

## Issues

1. Whether the best evidence rule required exclusion of testimony describing a laundry mark on a shirt found in the stolen vehicle because the government did not produce the shirt itself.
2. Whether Duffy was denied a fair trial because some jurors were present during an unrelated sentencing in the courtroom.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the best evidence rule did not bar testimony describing the shirt and its laundry mark.
- The court rejected the claim of reversible prejudice from jurors’ presence during an unrelated sentencing.

## Legal Principles

- The best evidence rule applies when the terms of a writing are material to a claim or defense; it does not automatically require production of a physical object that merely bears an inscription.
- For an “inscribed chattel,” testimonial proof of the inscription may be admitted when the inscription is collateral or incidental and the risk of misdescription is low.
- A defendant seeking reversal based on juror exposure to extraneous courtroom events must show prejudice sufficient to undermine the fairness of the trial; mere presence during an unrelated sentencing, without more, may be insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld Duffy’s Dyer Act conviction, ruling that witness testimony about a shirt’s “D-U-F” laundry mark was admissible because the mark was incidental identification evidence rather than a legally material writing, and holding that the claimed juror exposure to an unrelated sentencing did not warrant reversal.


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