## Facts

- Mohamed Siddiqui, a visiting professor, sought the National Science Foundation (NSF) Alan T. Waterman Award.
- NSF received a nomination form indicating that another scientist nominated Siddiqui and listing multiple outside references.
- NSF also received a reference form purportedly signed by one listed reference and a faxed reference letter from another.
- A listed reference later notified NSF that he had never submitted a recommendation, triggering an Inspector General investigation.
- Siddiqui faxed NSF withdrawing his candidacy shortly after the investigation began.
- In an interview with an NSF agent, Siddiqui signed a statement admitting he nominated himself, asserting he had permission to submit forms on others’ behalf, and admitting he modified a prior recommendation letter written for a different award to fit the Waterman Award.
- At trial, the government introduced emails requesting recommendations from foreign scientists; the emails contained identifying details, including content uniquely tied to Siddiqui and a nickname recognized by recipients.
- The recipients testified the emails came from an address previously used to communicate with Siddiqui and that they received corroborating phone calls from a caller identifying himself as Siddiqui whose voice they recognized.
- Because two key witnesses resided abroad, the government took their videotaped depositions overseas for use at trial; defense counsel participated and cross-examined.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting emails allegedly sent by Siddiqui without sufficient authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
2. Whether admitting videotaped foreign depositions in lieu of live testimony violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 or the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the emails were adequately authenticated through circumstantial evidence and were properly admitted.
- The court held the foreign depositions were properly taken and admitted because the witnesses were effectively unavailable for trial and the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine, satisfying confrontation requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 when there is sufficient proof for a reasonable juror to find the item is what the proponent claims; distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances may establish authenticity.
- Emails may be authenticated by circumstantial indicia such as prior use of the sending address, identifying signature details (including nicknames), content reflecting knowledge likely unique to the sender, and corroborating communications linking the sender to the message.
- Questions about competing inferences of authorship generally go to weight for the jury once the Rule 901 threshold is met.
- Foreign deposition testimony may be admitted in a criminal case when live testimony is impracticable because a witness is outside the court’s subpoena power and the deposition provides procedural protections, including notice and an opportunity for meaningful cross-examination.
- The Confrontation Clause is satisfied when the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine, including through videotaped depositions played to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Siddiqui’s fraud and obstruction convictions, ruling that the government’s emails were properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence and that videotaped foreign depositions were admissible because the witnesses were effectively unavailable and the defense had a full opportunity for cross-examination.


United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000)