United States v. Vigneau

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999 · Evidence

187 F.3d 70 (1999)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencebusiness recordsdouble hearsayhearsayRule 803(6)Rule 805outsider statementsWestern Union forms

Facts

The government introduced more than 70 Western Union transfer records to show that Patrick Vigneau sent drug proceeds from Rhode Island to associates in Texas. On 21 "To Send Money" forms, the sender information listed Patrick Vigneau's name, address, and telephone number, and those 21 forms matched the 21 substantive money laundering counts of conviction. Western Union employees recorded and maintained the forms and related computer data in the ordinary course of business, but in 1995 Western Union did not require independent proof of the sender's identity. The district court admitted the forms and computer records without redaction and for all purposes, including as proof that Patrick Vigneau was the sender.

Issue

Whether Western Union "To Send Money" forms and corresponding computer records were admissible under the business records exception to prove the truth of the sender information written on the forms, specifically that Patrick Vigneau was the sender of the transfers. Also, whether any error required reversal of his various convictions.

Rule

Although a business record itself may satisfy Rule 803(6), the business records exception does not by itself admit for their truth statements within the record made by an outsider to the business. Such embedded outsider statements are hearsay within hearsay under Rule 805 and require their own hearsay exception or independent evidentiary basis; trustworthiness language in Rule 803(6) does not create a separate exception for outsider assertions. A business verification procedure may provide circumstantial evidence of identity, but absent such verification, sender-identifying information cannot be admitted for its truth merely because it appears in a business record.

🔒

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 Boston, the government offers records from HarborLink Transfer, a money-transfer business. A custodian testifies that the company keeps sender forms in the ordinary course of business, but in the relevant year clerks did not ask for identification; one form lists "Evan Torres" as sender, and the prosecution offers it to prove Evan sent the transfer.

Is the sender name on the form admissible for its truth under the business-records exception alone?

Explanation. The record itself may qualify under Rule 803(6), but that does not automatically make admissible the truth of a statement supplied by someone outside the business. The sender line is effectively the assertion, "I am Evan Torres," which is hearsay within hearsay under Rule 805. Without a separate hearsay exception or independent evidence connecting Evan to the statement, it cannot be admitted for its truth. (Derived from United States v. Vigneau (1999).)