USA v. Begay

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Arnold James Begay,
Defendant.
No. CR-24-08110-001-PCT-DJH
ORDER
Before the Court are the Government’s Motions in Limine related to evidence they
seek to admit at the Jury trial: a Motion to Admit Certified Conviction Documents (Doc.
53), and to Admit Certified Sex Offender Registration Documents (Doc. 55). The
Defendant has not filed a Response and the time to do so has passed.1
The Court will grant the Government’s Motions for the reasons explained herein.
I. Background
On July 16, 2002 Defendant Arnold James Begay was convicted of Aggravated Sexual
Abuse of a Child in Indian Country, in the U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 2).2 His conviction resulted from his guilty plea under the terms of a plea
1 The Defendant’s Responses were due five-days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference set
for December 17, 2025. (Doc. 39). On September 10, 2025, the Court, upon Defendant’s
motion, permitted him to represent himself. The Court instructed him to abide by all Orders
of this Court, the local rules of the Arizona District Court and federal rules of criminal
procedure. The Court also maintained his court-appointed counsel as stand-by counsel.
2 Doc. 1 is the Complaint filed in this case. The New Mexico federal court documents are
cited as “CR 00-1393” followed by the relevant document number in that case. All other
document references are to the Government’s Motions and exhibits as filed in the present
case.
Case 3:24-cr-08110-MTL Document 63 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
agreement with the Government in case number CR 00-1393 (Doc. 64), which was filed
on March 11, 2002. (Doc. 53-1). Judgment was entered and sentence imposed on August
2, 2002 and Defendant Begay was sentenced to 180 months in federal custody followed by
5-years on supervised release. (CR 00-1391; Doc. 67) (Doc. 53-1). His supervised release
terms included the court-imposed condition that “[t]he defendant shall immediately register
as a sex offender at the Sheriff’s Office or Police Department in the county of residence
and provide verification to the probation officer.” (CR 00-1391; Doc. 67 at 4).
On September 29, 2015, before his U.S. Probation Officer, Defendant Begay signed
a “Sex Offender Registration Notice” which explained his requirement to register as a sex
offender. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 3). The next day, he registered as a sex offender through the Arizona
Department of Public Safety Sex Offender Registration Form, which required that he initial
his acknowledgment of re-registering, within 72-hours of changing his residence. (Doc. 1
at 4). The Registration Form included a statement that his registration requirement is for
his lifetime, and that failure to register is punishable as a felony. (Id.). Defendant Begay
re-registered as a sex offender upon relocating to Phoenix, Arizona on March 18, 2019,
and again initialed his acknowledgment of requirements under the registration laws. (Doc.
1 ¶ 5).
The Government asserts that Defendant Begay was incarcerated for a time but that
he was scheduled to be released on July 12, 2019 to a residence on the Navajo Nation, in
Arizona. (Doc. 1 ¶6). The Government alleges that between July 17, 2019 and through on
or about September 4, 2024, Defendant Begay failed to re-register as a sex offender. (Doc.
7). The Government states that according to the Navajo Nation Police Department, the
Defendant had not registered as a sex offender through its registration system. The
Defendant’s alleged failure to register, under the terms of his 2002 conviction are what
form the basis of the grand jury’s indictment. Defendant Begay is charged with one count
of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a). (Doc.
7).
/ / / /
/ / / /
Case 3:24-cr-08110-MTL Document 63 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. Law and Analysis
The Government’s Motions seek preliminary rulings on its ability to admit evidence
without witnesses who can authenticate the evidence. During the trial, the Government
seeks to have the Court permit them to introduce Defendant Begay’s 2002 plea and
sentencing documents and his sex offender registration forms without a testifying witness.
The Government asserts that these documents qualify as self-authenticating under rule 902,
so no testifying witness is necessary. Alternatively, the Government asserts that the
documents are admissible under an exception to the hearsay exclusion rule, namely, Rule
803.
A. Admitting Self-authenticating Documents under Rule 902
Authentication is a precondition to admitting evidence which can be satisfied by
establishing that the document or item is what it is purported to be. See United States v.
Alvirez, 831 F.3d. 1115, 1122-3, (9th Cir. 2016). Authentication occurs when a witness
with sufficient knowledge identifies the item and informs the jury of the circumstances of
how the item was created. Id at 1123. Yet, certain documents require no extrinsic evidence
of genuineness to be admitted into evidence. Id. Rule 902 provides that certain items of
“evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order
to be admitted[.]” Among the listed items of evidence are: Domestic Public Documents
that are Sealed and Signed under Rule 902(1); Domestic Public Documents that are Not
Sealed but are Signed under Rule 902(2), and Certified Copies of Public Records under
Rule 902(4).
Each Rule applies to specific documents and has nuanced but important
requirements. For instance, documents admitted under Rule 902(1) must bear the seal of
the government entity and bear a signature that attests to its genuineness. Rule 902(2)
applies to documents that do not have a seal, so it requires additional safeguards including
1) bearing the signature of “an officer or an employee of an entity named in Rule
902(1)(A),” and 2) the document must bear a sealed certification of a public officer having
a seal and attesting that the officer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.
Rule 902(4) permits admission of copies of official records that were recorder or
Case 3:24-cr-08110-MTL Document 63 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
filed in a public office as authorized by law, but the copy must be certified as correct by
“(A) the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification; or (B) a certificate
that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), [or] a federal statute[.]” Courts have routinely
held that prior conviction records are self-authenticating under Rule 902(4). See United
States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d. 1062, 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (admitting the defendant’s
conviction records, photograph and fingerprints included in the “penitentiary packet” under
Rule 902(4) as having been certified as correct by the documents legal custodian.).
Rule 902(11) permits admission of an original or a copy of a domestic record “that
meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A) – (C) as shown by a certification of the custodian
or another qualified person[.]” Rule 803(6) excepts from inadmissible hearsay, records of
regularly conducted activity so long as the “opponent does not show the source of
information . . . lacks trustworthiness” and meets the Rule’s criteria set out in sections (A)
– (D). However, reports or records prepared for the purposes of litigation often lack
sufficient trustworthiness and they do not qualify for Rule 803(6) exceptions. See Paddack
v. Christensen, Inc. 745 F.2d 1254, 1258 (9th Cir. 1984). So, if a “qualified witness”
testifies that he relied on the certified records in the performance of his business and/or
duties, the certified record may be received into evidence. See Rule 803(6)(D); see also
United States v. Childs, 5 F.3d 1328, 1333, (9th Cir. 1993) (citing cases). The witness need
not be the custodian of the documents offered into evidence under Rule 803(6). Id. at 1334.
But the witness must evince familiarity with the document’s preparation and content.
Importantly, Rule 902(11) also mandates that “[b]efore the trial, . . . 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.
1. The Certified Conviction Documents (Doc. 53)
The Government’s Motion in Limine asks the Court to admit “certified court records
in lieu of live testimony by custodian witnesses” under Rule 902. The documents attached
to the Government’s Motion include copies of the Defendant’s Judgment and Plea
Agreement from his 2002 criminal case. (Doc. 53-1). They offer that admitting these
Case 3:24-cr-08110-MTL Document 63 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
records in this manner will avoid the need to call live witnesses, promote simplicity in
procedure and eliminate expense and delay. (Id. at 2).
The Government states that “[a]ll certified conviction documents [it] seeks to admit
are certified official records or documents recorded or filed in a public office as authorized
by law” so they are admissible “under Rule 902(1).” (Doc. 55 at 2; ln. 3-4). They do not
claim, however, that the records bear a seal or as having been signed as required under that
Rule. So, the Government may have misstated the Rule which applies to their described
evidence. The Government describes the conviction documents as “certified official
records or documents recorder or filed in a public office.” The term “certified” is used in
Rule 902(4) relating to the admissibility of certified copies of documents, which more
likely covers the Governments described conviction records.
So long as the Government seeks to admit previously disclosed certified copies (or
documents bearing a seal and signature) of Defendant Begay’s 2002 conviction and
sentencing records, they qualify as self-authenticating under Rule 902. So, no witness need
testify as to the document’s authenticity.
2. Defendant Begay’s prior Sex Offender Registrations
The Government also seeks to admit into evidence “certified copies of prior sex
offender registrations” completed by the Defendant and “maintained in the public records
of Maricopa, Navajo, and Pima Counties, in lieu of live testimony” under Rule 902. (oc.
55 at 1). The Government further asserts that if the documents fall under the hearsay
prohibition, “they fall under the business record exception of Rule 803(6), [and] the public
records exception of Rule 803(8). The Government states that “[a]dmission of the self-
authenticating [registration documents] will avoid the need to call live witnesses” and help
“to eliminated unjustifiable expense and delay.” (Id. at 2).
Again, the Government’s lack of clarity in precisely describing the evidence it seeks
to introduce as self-authenticating muddles the issue. First, the Government describes the
sex-offender registration documents as “certified copies” that are maintained in the public
record. (Id. at 1; ln. 19-20). Then, they describe the documents as “certified official
records” or “documents recorded or filed in a public office.”
Case 3:24-cr-08110-MTL Document 63 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If, as first described, the registration documents are certified copies, then, the
Government could move them into evidence through Rule 902(4), if certified as correct by
a custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, or the certificate complies
with Rule 902(1), (2) or (3). If, they are indeed “certified official records” without a seal
but are officially signed and another person attest that the signor had the authority to so
sign, then, they could be admitted under Rule 902(2). Again, the Government’s varying
descriptions of its evidence strains the Court’s ability to make a final ruling on the Rule
applicable to its evidence. Nonetheless, the Government is correct in noting that if they
proffer testimony that the documents are records of regularly conducted activity and meet
the criteria set for the in subsections (A) – (E), the records are exempt from hearsay
objections under Rule 803(6).
At the final pretrial conference, the Government is instructed to precisely describe
the evidence it seeks to introduce, what form it will take and whether they seek admission
under Rule 902(1), (2) or (4). The Government will also place on the record when and how
they disclosed the evidence to the Defendant. The Court will then determine whether their
evidence as to the sex offender registration documents are admissible and under which
Rule(s).
IT IS ORDERED granting the Government’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 53) as
provided for in this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as to the Governments Motion in Limine (Doc. 55),
at the Final Pretrial Conference, the Government shall precisely describe the records it
seeks to introduce and explain the Rule upon which it relies for its admission.
Dated this 16th day of December, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cr-08110-MTL Document 63 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 6