## Facts

- Masao Fujii (also known as Yasuo Tamura) and three Chinese nationals traveled from Vietnam to Chicago on January 5–6, 2000, using counterfeit Japanese passports.
- At O’Hare International Airport, Fujii presented a counterfeit Japanese passport and was referred from primary to secondary inspection due to missing security features.
- INS officials found three Chinese women attempting to destroy their Japanese passports in an airport restroom; they were escorted to secondary inspection.
- During sworn asylum interviews, INS officers warned the women that this might be their only opportunity to provide information, that honesty was required, and that lies could trigger penalties or affect immigration relief.
- Two of the women described assistance by a “tall” “American/foreigner,” and when shown a photograph of Fujii, denied knowing him or identifying him as the smuggler; one refused to sign her statement.
- The government also sought to link Fujii to earlier alleged facilitation of fraudulent entries at JFK Airport in December 1999 through handprinted immigration forms purportedly completed by him.
- The government proposed handwriting expert Karen Ann Cox to identify Fujii as the writer of the handprinted forms, based on comparison with exemplars.
- Fujii moved in limine to exclude (1) Cox’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and (2) the asylum-interview statements and related INS records as hearsay and under the Confrontation Clause.
- The court held a Daubert hearing on the handwriting evidence (July 17, 2000) and issued two pretrial evidentiary opinions in September 2000.

## Issues

1. Whether a handwriting-identification expert could testify under Rule 702 that Fujii authored handprinted immigration forms, given reliability concerns under Daubert and Kumho Tire and the circumstances of Japanese handprinting.
2. Whether statements made by the three Chinese nationals during INS asylum interviews were admissible over hearsay objections, including under Rules 803(6) and 803(8), and related provisions.
3. Whether admitting the aliens’ interview statements and portions of INS records against Fujii would violate the Confrontation Clause, particularly where declarants were not subject to cross-examination.
4. How to distinguish admissible routine administrative entries from inadmissible investigative/evaluative or testimonial content within INS files in a criminal prosecution.

## Decision

- The court granted Fujii’s Daubert motion and excluded the government’s handwriting expert testimony identifying Fujii as the author of the handprinted immigration forms.
- The court held that, given the case-specific context (handprinting, Japanese writing practices, and the foundation offered), the proposed handwriting-identification testimony lacked a sufficiently reliable basis under Rule 702.
- The court did not admit the aliens’ asylum-interview statements wholesale as business or public records; it limited admission of INS materials based on hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause.
- The court permitted admission of routine, objective, non-evaluative INS record entries made in the regular course of agency operations, while restricting or excluding substantive interview statements offered for their truth against Fujii.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 702, the court must act as gatekeeper to ensure expert testimony is both reliable and helpful; Daubert’s reliability factors apply flexibly, and Kumho Tire extends the gatekeeping duty beyond strictly scientific testimony.
- Handwriting-comparison testimony is not automatically admissible; reliability must be shown as applied to the specific writing and circumstances presented.
- Official records that qualify as business or public records do not automatically render embedded third-party statements admissible; “hearsay within hearsay” requires an independent basis for admission.
- In criminal cases, Rule 803(8) limits use of law-enforcement observations and investigative content offered against the accused; courts must separate routine administrative recording from adversarial or prosecutorial functions.
- Where recorded statements are testimonial or functionally akin to testimony and the declarant is not subject to cross-examination, admission for their truth may raise Confrontation Clause problems.

## Conclusion

The court exercised strict pretrial evidentiary control by excluding case-specific handwriting-identification testimony under Rule 702 and by narrowing the government’s use of INS asylum-interview statements and related records, allowing routine administrative entries but restricting interview-based and law-enforcement-oriented content due to hearsay and Confrontation Clause limits.


United States v. Fujii, 152 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2000)