United States v. Burdulis
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
753 F.3d 255 (2014)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Paul Burdulis (defendant) was charged with possession of child pornography after authorities found a thumb drive containing pornographic images at his home. Under federal child-pornography law, the government was required to show that the images were produced using materials shipped in interstate commerce. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) sought to prove this element of the crime by introducing an inscription on the thumb drive that said, “Made in China.” The prosecution notified Burdulis of its intent to introduce the inscription but did not inform Burdulis who manufactured the device. The district court overruled Burdulis’s hearsay objection, finding the inscription to be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 807 (Rule 807). Burdulis was convicted, and he appealed. For the first time on appeal, Burdulis claimed that the prosecution’s notice was inadequate because it did not include the name of the manufacturer and did not specifically reference Rule 807.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kayatta, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
