United States v. Laster

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001 · Evidence

258 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 2001)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencehearsayRule 803(6)Rule 807business recordsresidual exceptionqualified witnessmethamphetamine sentencing

Facts

Wilson Oil Company records showed several 1993 sales of hydriodic acid to UTI, where Laster worked, and an additional canceled order; the records also included a chemical diversion letter signed by Laster identifying him as UTI's authorized purchasing agent. Laster later admitted that he and Lear made trips to Illinois to pick up hydriodic acid for an older man and that he expected the chemicals would be used to make methamphetamine, and Lear gave a corroborating statement. In 1994 police stopped Lear's truck while Laster was a passenger and found firearms, methamphetamine-manufacturing materials, and 58.2 grams of pure D-methamphetamine in liquid form. At trial, the district court admitted the Wilson Oil records and later sentenced defendants based on a finding that the hydriodic acid could have produced D-methamphetamine.

Issue

Whether the district court properly admitted the Wilson Oil Company records when the government failed to establish a proper business-records foundation under Rule 803(6), and whether the district court could sentence defendants based on intended D-methamphetamine without violating Apprendi when the sentences remained below the statutory maximum.

Rule

A hearsay statement that is not admissible under Rule 803(6) may still be admitted under Rule 807 if it has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, is material, is more probative on the point than other evidence reasonably obtainable, and admission serves the interests of justice. For Rule 803(6), a proper foundation requires a witness familiar with the record-keeping system. Apprendi is not triggered by judicial factfinding that affects the guideline range but does not increase the sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal fraud trial in Cleveland, the government offers shipping invoices from Lakeview Industrial Supply through Agent Nora Bennett. Bennett obtained the invoices during the investigation and spoke twice with the supplier's receptionist, but she never learned how the company creates, stores, or verifies its records.

Are the invoices admissible under the business-records exception based on Bennett's testimony alone?

Explanation. Rule 803(6) requires a proper foundation, and an outsider such as a government agent may supply it only if the witness is familiar with the record-keeping system of the business whose records are offered. Here, Bennett merely obtained the invoices and had minimal contact with the company, so she lacks the familiarity required by the majority opinion. Choice D is too rigid because the witness need not be the custodian if otherwise qualified.