DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document535 _ Filed 12/09/21 Page6of8 remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their admissibility.”). Mr. Alessi’s testimony sufficiently surmounts Rule 901’s “minimal” bar. The Defense’s objection on authentication grounds is accordingly overruled. The Court also overrules the Defense’s objection on hearsay grounds. The directory does not constitute hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth that the names listed identify a particular individual or that the phone numbers listed next to the names are correct. The Second Circuit has affirmed the admission of documents that provide names and contact information for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the individual that possessed that document to that name or phone number, rather than for the truth of that contact information. For example, in United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008), the defense objected on hearsay grounds to the admission of two address books that belonged to mujahidin fighters that listed the defendant’s name and a phone number. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the address books were not hearsay because they were not admitted to establish that the phone number next to defendant’s name “was, in fact, his phone number.” /d. at 176. Rather, it was relevant alone that his “name and contact information appeared in the address books of two men identified as mujahidin fighters.” Jd. In an analogous line of cases, the Second Circuit has regularly admitted for non-hearsay purposes documents that contain a name for the fact that a person claiming to have that name took a particular action. For example, in United States v. Londono, 175 F. App’x 370, 373 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit affirmed the admission of Western Union wire receipts to prove that a person that claimed to have the defendant’s name completed wire orders. The Government also admitted other circumstantial evidence to permit the jury to infer that the receipts were “linked to” the defendant. /d. at 374; see also United States v. Zapata, 356 F. Supp. 2d 323, DOJ-OGR- 00008308