USA v. Claus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-155
CHRISTIAN CONRAD CLAUS 	SECTION: D (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	Government’s 	Fourth 	Motion 	in 	Limine 	for 	a
Determination that Records Meet the Requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence.1
Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion; however, the Court considers its
legal arguments in its opposition to the Government’s prior Motions.2 After careful
consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court GRANTS the Motion.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
The 	Government 	filed 	the 	present 	Motion 	in 	Limine 	for 	a 	pretrial
determination 	that 	one 	page 	of 	Defendant’s 	New 	Orleans 	Police 	Department
(“NOPD”) personnel file, one page of Defendant’s Capital One account records, ten
pages of records from Clark County, and one page of Google billing information that
the Government seeks to admit at trial comport with Federal Rules of Evidence
803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and 902(14).4 In its Motion, the Government advises that it
previously filed three motions in limine requesting determinations that similar
1 R. Doc. 148.
2 R. Docs. 52 and 133.
3 The Factual and Procedural Background of the case has been set out in a previous Order and Reasons
from this Court and is adopted here. See R. Doc. 149.
4 R. Docs. 148-1 and 148-2.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 170 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 6

records meet the requirements of those particular federal rules of evidence, which
motions were granted by the court.5 The Government relies on its arguments as set
forth in the previous motions in limine.6 The Government contends that this motion
seeks “to authenticate several records, which complete portions of records described
in similar prior motions.”7
The motion was originally set for submission on June 9, 2026; however, the
Government moved to expedite hearing on the motion,8 which the Court granted and
ordered that any opposition to the motion be filed by May 29, 2026.9 No opposition
has been filed as of the date of this Order and Reasons. In its Motion for Expedited
Hearing, the Government states that it “has no objection to the Court considering the
arguments 	contained 	in 	the 	defendant’s 	prior 	oppositions.” 10 The 	Court 	thus
considers Defendant’s prior oppositions in response to the present motion.11
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. Confrontation Clause
“The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment ‘prohibits admitting out-
of-court statements as evidence against defendants in a criminal case unless they can
cross-examine the declarant. But that prohibition applies only if the statements are
testimonial.’”12 Furthermore, “there is a distinction between a document ‘created for
5 Referencing R. Doc. 31, R. Doc. 51, and R. Doc. 123. See also Court Orders at R. Doc. 71.
6 See R. Doc. 31-1.
7 R. Doc. 148-1 at p. 1.
8 R. Doc. 150.
9 R. Doc. 157.
10 R. Doc. 150 at p. 1 (citing R. Docs. 52 and 133).
11 R. Doc. 133. Also see R. Doc. 52.
12 United States v. Age, 136 F.4th 193, 226 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Age v. United States., 146
S. Ct. 614, 223 L. Ed. 2d 230 (2025), and cert. denied sub nom. Guillory v. United States, 146 S. Ct.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 170 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 6

the sole purpose of providing evidence against a defendant and a document created
to ‘authenticate or provide a copy of an otherwise admissible record[.]’”13 Although the
latter is admissible, the former is not.14
B. Authenticity via Certifications
The Court “must decide any preliminary question about whether. . .evidence
is 	admissible.” 15 Rule 	803 	of 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Evidence 	outlines 	various
exceptions to the rule against hearsay which apply “regardless of whether the
declarant is available as a witness.” Under Rule 803(6), a “record of an act, event,
condition, opinion, or diagnosis” is not excluded if
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information
transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of
a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule
902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the
method 	or 	circumstances 	of 	preparation 	indicate 	a 	lack 	of
trustworthiness.
Rule 902 enumerates items of evidence that are “self-authenticating” and thus
“require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted.” Such items
include the certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity,16 certified
615, 223 L. Ed. 2d 230 (2025), and cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 615, 223 L. Ed. 2d 230 (2025) (quoting United
States v. Ayelotan, 917 F.3d 394, 403 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Mar. 4, 2019)).
13 Id. at 227 (quoting Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 322-23, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174
L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)).
14 Id.
15 Fed. R. Evid. 104.
16 Fed. R. Evid. 902(11).
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 170 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 6

records generated by an electronic process or system,17 and certified data copied from
an electronic device, storage medium, or file.18 The introduction of these types of
records require a “certification of the custodian or another qualified person,” and “the
proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer
the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection —
so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.”19 The records must also
meet the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C).
III. 	ANALYSIS20
In the present motion, the Government seeks a pretrial determination that the
following records are authentic: one page of Defendant’s NOPD personnel file, one
page of the Defendant’s Capital One account records, ten pages of records from Clark
County, and one page of Google billing information. 21 A separate certificate of
authenticity is attached for each of the records.22 The Government represents that
these records are remaining pages of records that have previously been authenticated
by the Court and that these records “complete portions of records described in similar
prior motions.”23
17 Fed. R. Evid. 902(13).
18 Fed. R. Evid. 902(14).
19 Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), (13), (14).
20 The Court incorporates by reference its prior analysis in its prior Order and Reasons. See R. Doc.
151. To the extent that the Court has adopted the language in its previous Order and Reasons, it
makes clear that it conducted a separate analysis on each piece of evidence the Government now seeks
to authenticate.
21 R. Doc. 148-2.
22 R. Doc. 148-3.
23 R. Doc. 148-1 at p. 1.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 170 Filed 06/05/26 Page 4 of 6

As to Defendant’s confrontation clause argument, the Court emphasizes its
prior holding that its determination of these records’ authenticity does not implicate
the confrontation clause because the records here “were created in the ordinary
course of business, not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial”
and thus are not testimonial.24 The authentication of the records at issue by use of a
certificate of authenticity under Fed. R. Evid. 902 does not run afoul of the
confrontation clause as there is no evidence that any of the records were created for
the sole purpose of providing evidence against this defendant.25
In this Order, the Court issues a relatively narrow ruling. The Federal Rules
of Evidence and binding precedent not only permit the Court to make a pretrial ruling
as to the authenticity of the records, but the plain reading of Rule 104 obliges the
Court to do so.26 The Court finds that the proffered records and certifications of
authenticity meet the requirements of Rules 803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and/or 902(14).
The Court is convinced that the Government has met its burden by providing the
appropriate Certificates of Authenticity for each of those categories of documents
which satisfy the Federal Rules of Evidence.27 Thus, the Court finds that the evidence
is authentic. Determinations regarding the admissibility of the records, except as to
the records’ authenticity, is deferred until trial.28
24 Age, 136 F.4th at 226 (citation modified).
25 See Court Order at R. Doc. 71 at p. 4 (“Accordingly, in line with Fifth Circuit precedent, this Court
holds that the Rule 902 certificates in this case do not violate the Confrontation Clause.”) and at n. 5
(collecting cases).
26 “The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege
exists, or evidence is admissible …”
27 See R. Doc. 148-3.
28 See also R. Doc. 123-3. (“This ruling does not preclude defendant from making objections to
admissibility on other (i.e., non-authenticity) grounds.”).
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 170 Filed 06/05/26 Page 5 of 6

IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion 29 is GRANTED as to the
authenticity of the records. Any other determination of the records’ admissibility is
deferred until trial.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 5, 2026
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
29 R. Doc. 148.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 170 Filed 06/05/26 Page 6 of 6