## Facts

- Patrick M. Vigneau and Richard Crandall operated a drug venture from about February 1995 through at least late 1995 to obtain marijuana and steroids in the Southwest for resale in the Northeast.
- Crandall sourced drugs from suppliers in El Paso and Mexico and shipped them to Patrick in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts for distribution through others, including Mark Vigneau and Joseph Rinaldi.
- Proceeds were returned to Crandall primarily through Western Union money transfers; senders sometimes used false or borrowed names.
- The government obtained physical and documentary evidence during the investigation, including ledgers and other items after intercepting a drug package and searching a van tied to Patrick.
- At trial, the government introduced Western Union “To Send Money” forms that contained both printed transaction information and handwritten “sender” information (name, address, phone), often listing “Patrick Vigneau.”
- The district court admitted the forms in full as business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) over hearsay objections, and Patrick was convicted of drug and money-laundering offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether unredacted Western Union “To Send Money” forms were admissible under Rule 803(6) to prove the truth of handwritten sender-identifying information supplied by customers.
2. If admitting the sender-identifying portions was error, whether the error was harmless as to particular money-laundering counts and the remaining convictions.

## Decision

- The First Circuit held that the forms qualified as business records only as to information generated and kept as part of Western Union’s regular operations (e.g., date, amount, and origin/destination of a transfer).
- The court held that handwritten sender-identifying information was hearsay from an outsider to the business and was not admissible for its truth under Rule 803(6) because customers had no duty of accuracy and Western Union did not verify identity.
- The court concluded that admitting the forms in unredacted form to prove Patrick was the sender was erroneous in most instances.
- The court affirmed the drug-related convictions and the money-laundering conspiracy conviction, but vacated certain substantive money-laundering convictions that depended materially on the improperly admitted sender-identification evidence.
- The case was remanded for resentencing in light of the vacated counts.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 803(6) permits admission of business records for matters recorded by the business in the regular course of operations, based on the reliability of records made under a business duty of accuracy.
- Statements embedded in a business record that originate with third parties outside the business are not admissible for their truth under Rule 803(6) unless another hearsay exception or a non-hearsay theory applies.
- A business’s routine recording of customer-supplied identifying information does not convert the customer’s assertion of identity into the business’s own statement where the business does not verify the information.
- Evidentiary error warrants vacatur only for counts where the improperly admitted material was significant to proof; convictions supported by substantial independent evidence may be affirmed.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit limited the business-records exception by excluding customer-written sender identity on Western Union forms when offered to prove who sent money, vacating substantive money-laundering counts dependent on that hearsay while affirming the remaining convictions and remanding for resentencing.


United States v. Vigneau, 187 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 1999)