Telephone receipts possessed by defendant but not linked to him in any other way are not admissible as non-hearsay adoptive admissions

EVIDENCE/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE United States v. Ramirez, No. 05-4099, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir.)(Mar. 16, 2007)(Utah). Appeal of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of firearm by restricted person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); and use of communication facility in drug trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). HELD: (1) District court erred by admitting cellular telephone receipts into evidence as non-hearsay adoptive admissions. Because facts failed to tie defendant to receipts other than by mere possession, defendant did not adopt their contents. Because receipts were not adoptive admissions, they were hearsay, and thus improperly admitted as evidence. The error was harmless, however, because abundance of other evidence left no doubt that outcome of trial would not have been affected if evidence had been excluded. (2) Because Bruton doctrine does not control situations in which evidence is admissible under well recognized exception to hearsay rule, evidence that is admissible under conspiracy exception to hearsay rule does not violate Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Read the opinion here.