## Facts

- Demian Pina was tried in federal court for a child-pornography offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, which required proof of an interstate- or foreign-commerce nexus.
- The government introduced a Compaq computer (Government Exhibit 7.1) seized on June 4, 2013, alleged to have been used in the offense.
- The computer bore a country-of-origin marking stating “Made in China.”
- The government sought to present testimony describing the “Made in China” label to prove the computer was manufactured abroad and therefore traveled in foreign commerce.
- The defense objected that using the label to prove origin would be hearsay because it was offered for the truth of its assertion.
- The court initially barred use of the label, then revisited the ruling and issued an order memorializing its final evidentiary decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a “Made in China” country-of-origin marking on a computer, when offered to prove where the computer was made, is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801–802.
2. If the marking is hearsay, whether it is admissible under the residual hearsay exception, Fed. R. Evid. 807, to prove the interstate-/foreign-commerce element of a § 2252 charge.

## Decision

- The court held that the “Made in China” marking is a hearsay statement when offered to prove the computer’s country of manufacture.
- The court admitted the marking under Fed. R. Evid. 807, finding sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and satisfying the rule’s other conditions.
- The court overruled the defense hearsay objection and allowed testimony about the label for purposes of establishing the interstate-/foreign-commerce nexus.

## Legal Principles

- A written country-of-origin label offered to prove its asserted origin is a “statement” by a “declarant” and constitutes hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
- Prior authority addressing Confrontation Clause error does not necessarily resolve whether such labels are hearsay under the Rules of Evidence.
- The residual hearsay exception (Fed. R. Evid. 807) can permit admission of a country-of-origin label when:
  - the label has guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to recognized hearsay exceptions (including reliability supported by regulatory labeling regimes and potential civil liability for false origin claims);
  - the evidence is offered on a material fact (here, the commerce element);
  - it is more probative on the point than reasonably obtainable alternatives (such as testimony from foreign manufacturing sources or complex supply-chain proof); and
  - admission serves the purposes of the Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice.

## Conclusion

The court treated the “Made in China” marking as hearsay when used to prove manufacture location, but admitted it under Rule 807 because its reliability and necessity justified using it to help establish the foreign- or interstate-commerce element of the charged offense.


United States v. Pina, 190 F. Supp. 3d 748 (S.D. Ohio 2016)