## Facts

- The government prosecuted Stuart Newton for drug-smuggling offenses tied to an international scheme involving narcotics proceeds and alleged Swiss bank accounts.
- Investigators recovered a handwritten note from a co-defendant’s possession and sought to attribute the note to Newton to connect him to foreign accounts.
- The note included multiple aliases associated with Newton and listed bank-account numbers; at least one account number matched a number found in documents seized from Newton’s home.
- The note referred to “my lawyer” named Milton Shapiro, matching Newton’s attorney.
- The note directed contact at a telephone number linked to a coconspirator connected to Newton.
- The note provided that if the author died, the money should be divided between the author’s family and a person sharing the name of Newton’s wife.
- The district court found the note sufficiently authenticated, admitted it as Newton’s non-hearsay statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), and Newton was convicted.
- Newton appealed, chiefly challenging authentication and admissibility of the note.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding sufficient authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to attribute the handwritten note to Newton.
2. Whether, once attributed to Newton, the note was properly admitted as a statement of a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Newton’s conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the note.
- The court concluded the government presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable juror to find Newton authored the note.
- Having met the authentication threshold, the note was properly treated as Newton’s party-opponent statement and thus not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 901, authentication requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims; this showing may be made through circumstantial evidence, including distinctive contents and corroboration by external facts.
- The trial judge determines only whether a reasonable juror could find authenticity; the jury decides authorship and weight.
- A writing attributed to a defendant after sufficient authentication may be admitted as the defendant’s statement under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) and is not excluded as hearsay.
- Appellate review of authentication and related evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion; reversal is unwarranted if the ruling falls within a range of reasonable choices supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld admission of a handwritten note linking Newton to foreign accounts, holding that multiple corroborating identifiers in the note and related extrinsic evidence satisfied Rule 901’s authentication threshold and supported admission as a party-opponent statement under Rule 801(d)(2).


United States v. Newton, 891 F.2d 944 (1st Cir. 1989)