## Facts

- Frank Grady sought to obtain .30-caliber semiautomatic rifles (M-1-B carbines) for shipment to Northern Ireland.
- John Jankowski, a licensed firearms dealer in Yonkers, New York, sold multiple carbines to Grady (with assistance from others) in May and July 1970.
- Federal law required Jankowski to maintain accurate firearms acquisition-and-disposition records (a “logbook”).
- Ten carbines were entered in the logbook as sold to named individuals who were not the true purchasers/transferees, concealing the actual buyer and destination.
- Grady exported the same rifles without the required export permit.
- The government introduced Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) records showing that rifles matching the make and serial numbers of the New York rifles were later recovered in Northern Ireland.
- The district court admitted the RUC records under the public-records hearsay exception and permitted testimony about later similar conduct to show intent/knowledge.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and for making or causing false firearms-record entries, and to support Grady’s export conviction.
2. Whether the prosecution was barred by the five-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282.
3. Whether “false entries” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(m) and 923 require fictitious names, or also include entries using real names that materially misrepresent the true purchaser/transferee.
4. Whether foreign police seizure records (RUC reports) were admissible under the public-records hearsay exception and consistent with confrontation requirements.
5. Whether the admission of subsequent similar-acts evidence and the aiding-and-abetting jury instruction were erroneous.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court rejected the statute-of-limitations defense and concluded the indictment was timely as to the charged conspiracy and substantive offenses.
- The court held that materially misleading logbook entries violate §§ 922(m) and 923 even if the names and addresses listed are real.
- The court upheld admission of the RUC records as public records documenting official seizures and rejected related hearsay and confrontation objections.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting subsequent similar-acts evidence or in the aiding-and-abetting charge.

## Legal Principles

- Firearms recordkeeping statutes requiring “true entries” are violated by materially misleading entries that disguise the actual purchaser/transferee or disposition, even if the recorded purchasers are real persons.
- On appellate review of sufficiency, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government; the verdict stands if a rational factfinder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Conspiracy limitations analysis turns on whether the conspiracy continued into the limitations period and whether acts in furtherance occurred within that period; substantive offenses are timely if charged within the limitations period.
- Official records of a public agency memorializing matters observed and recorded pursuant to legal duty may be admissible under the public-records exception to the hearsay rule, including foreign law-enforcement seizure records when used to prove objective facts (e.g., recovery of specified items by serial number).
- Evidence of other acts may be admitted to prove intent, knowledge, or plan rather than propensity, subject to trial-court discretion; aiding-and-abetting liability may be charged where supported by the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld convictions arising from a scheme to purchase rifles through a licensed dealer and conceal the true buyer and destination through misleading logbook entries, holding that such entries are “false” under federal firearms recordkeeping laws and that foreign police seizure records linking the rifles to Northern Ireland were properly admitted as public records.


United States v. Grady, 544 F.2d 598 (2d Cir. 1976)