## Facts

- A developer sought local planning board approval for an automobile dealership project in Salem, New Hampshire.
- A third party approached the developer claiming he could control planning board votes and demanded $10,000 to secure approval.
- The developer contacted the FBI and continued discussions under supervision; the third party was later convicted of extortion.
- After the third party was incarcerated, he implicated a planning board member, alleging the board member conceived and directed the extortion approach and consulted during negotiations.
- Telephone toll records showed repeated calls between the third party and the board member during the relevant two-week period.
- The government introduced a note allegedly passed by the board member to another board member at the start of a meeting stating, “I need your help to stop the [developer’s] plan,” supported by witness testimony about the note’s passing and pre-meeting lobbying.
- At the meeting, the board member raised late objections based on a municipal spacing ordinance for used-car sellers and moved to approve the plan only subject to further legal review.
- A federal grand jury returned a multi-count indictment charging conspiracy and attempted extortion (Hobbs Act), use of interstate facilities (telephone) to promote unlawful activity, and making false material declarations to the grand jury.
- A jury convicted the board member on multiple counts; he appealed, challenging evidence admission, denial of access to grand jury transcripts, and sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in admitting the note where authentication was based primarily on circumstantial evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
2. Whether the defendant was entitled to disclosure of certain grand jury testimony under Rule 6(e) and the Jencks Act without showing a particularized need.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting other contested evidence related to the alleged scheme.
4. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on the counts of conviction.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the note was properly authenticated and admitted based on adequate circumstantial evidence connecting it to the defendant.
- The court upheld denial of broader disclosure of grand jury transcripts because the defendant failed to show a particularized need outweighing grand jury secrecy.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings, including admission of telephone records and testimony about the scheme and meeting conduct.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, the court held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), authentication requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims; circumstantial proof and witness testimony may satisfy this standard.
- A trial court’s authentication and related evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be upheld absent a clear error in judgment.
- Grand jury materials remain presumptively secret; disclosure generally requires a particularized need that outweighs the policy interests supporting secrecy, and speculative assertions are inadequate.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit left the convictions intact, holding that circumstantial evidence adequately authenticated a contested note, that grand jury secrecy was not overcome without a particularized need, and that the combined testimonial and corroborating evidence supported the extortion-related and false-declaration verdicts.


United States v. McMahon, 938 F.2d 1501 (1st Cir. 1991)