## Facts

- A shotgun-wielding robber wearing a motorcycle helmet robbed a Tampa savings and loan, taking cash that included ten pre-recorded $10 “bait money” bills.
- Witnesses saw the robber flee in a station wagon driven by a blond-haired woman; the vehicle description and license plate led police to Helen Suzanne Marcantoni.
- Police conducted a consensual search of the Marcantonis’ home and examined currency; an officer recorded serial numbers from $10 bills but did not seize them.
- Two recorded serial numbers matched the bank’s bait-money list from the robbery.
- Police later returned with a warrant to seize bait money but did not locate the bills.
- At trial, the government did not produce the two $10 bills; it offered officer testimony about the recorded serial numbers and expert testimony matching those serial numbers to the bait-money list.
- The defendants were convicted of armed bank robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon during the robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d).

## Issues

1. Whether the convictions had to be reversed because they rested on evidence derived from an unconstitutional search of the defendants’ residence.
2. Whether testimony about the bait-money bills’ serial numbers was inadmissible for lack of relevance or probative value.
3. Whether the “best evidence” doctrine required the government to produce the actual bait-money bills rather than prove the serial numbers through testimony.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court declined to decide the search’s validity, holding that any constitutional error in admitting the alleged fruits was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the bait-money serial-number testimony was relevant because it tended to show the defendants possessed stolen bait money shortly after the robbery.
- The court rejected the best-evidence objection, concluding the testimony was not barred and, in any event, secondary proof was permissible given the bills’ unavailability and no showing of government bad faith.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court may affirm without resolving a disputed Fourth Amendment question if any assumed constitutional evidentiary error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California.
- Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence more or less probable; possession of bait money soon after a robbery is probative of participation in the robbery.
- The best-evidence doctrine generally targets proof of the contents of writings, recordings, or photographs; testimony identifying currency by serial numbers may be admitted without producing the bills when originals are unavailable despite reasonable efforts and there is no bad faith.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1004, secondary evidence may be admitted when the original cannot be obtained and the proponent did not cause the unavailability in bad faith.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the Marcantonis’ convictions, ruling that any assumed Fourth Amendment error relating to bait-money evidence did not affect the verdict and that testimony identifying bait money by recorded serial numbers was admissible despite the government’s inability to produce the bills at trial.


United States v. Marcantoni, 590 F.2d 1324 (5th Cir. 1979)