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 	Third 	Motion 	in 	Limine 	for 	a
Determination that Records Meet the Requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence.1
Defendant 	opposes 	the 	Motion. 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 certain NOPD records, FedEx records, and cell phone extraction
records 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 two motions in limine requesting determinations that
similar records meet the requirements of those particular federal rules of evidence,
which motions were granted by the court.5 The Government relies on its reasons as
set forth in the previous motions in limine.6 Specifically, the Government contends
1 R. Doc. 123.
2 R. Doc. 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. 123-1 and 123-2.
5 Referencing R. Doc. 31 and R. Doc. 51. See also Court Order at R. Doc. 71.
6 See R. Doc. 31-1.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 151 Filed 05/26/26 Page 1 of 6

that Federal Rule of Evidence 104 allows for a preliminary determination regarding
the application of the rules of evidence when the prerequisites for admissibility are
established by a preponderance of the evidence.7
Defendant opposes the motion, adopting many of the same reasons as set forth
in his previous opposition to the Government’s previous motions in limine. 8 He
asserts that
[The] introduction of this evidence through certificates—rather than
sworn testimony of custodians—(1) violates the Confrontation Clause;
(2) the Confrontation Clause bars the testimonial statements of an
absent witness, as is here; and, (3) the Supreme Court has never held
that an affidavit or writing as those sought to be introduced here fall
under any exception to the right to confrontation.9
Further, Defendant states that “[t]o allow in certificates would be as improper and
unjust as allowing an adverse witness to testify by affidavit, simply affixing their
signature, then presenting it to the jury without cross examination of the witness at
all.” 10 Defendant emphasizes that “Mr. Claus, like all defendants, possesses the
constitutionally foundational, bedrock right to confront the witnesses against him.”
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
7 Id.
8 R. Doc. 133. Also see R. Doc. 52.
9 Id. at p. 2.
10 Id.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 151 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 6

testimonial.’”11 Furthermore, “there is a distinction between a document ‘created for
the sole purpose of providing evidence against a defendant and a document created
to ‘authenticate or provide a copy of an otherwise admissible record[.]’”12 Although the
latter is admissible, the former is not.13
B. Authenticity via Certifications
The Court “must decide any preliminary question about whether. . .evidence
is 	admissible.” 14 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
11 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.
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)).
12 Id. at 227 (quoting Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 322-23, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174
L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)).
13 Id.
14 Fed. R. Evid. 104.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 151 Filed 05/26/26 Page 3 of 6

include the certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity,15 certified
records generated by an electronic process or system,16 and certified data copied from
an electronic device, storage medium, or file.17 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.”18 The records must also
meet the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C).
III. 	ANALYSIS
In the present motion, the Government seeks a pretrial determination that the
following records are authentic: records from the NOPD, including operations and
policy manuals, police reports, body worn camera audits and footage, vehicle camera
footage, radio recordings, 911 recordings, and CASTNet searches; records from
FedEx; 	a 	transcript 	of 	testimony; 	and 	data 	and 	metadata 	from 	a 	cell 	phone
extraction. 19 A separate certificate of authenticity is attached for each of the
records.20
As to Defendant’s confrontation clause challenge, the Court’s 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
15 Fed. R. Evid. 902(11).
16 Fed. R. Evid. 902(13).
17 Fed. R. Evid. 902(14).
18 Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), (13), (14).
19 R. Doc. 123-2.
20 R. Doc. 123-3.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 151 Filed 05/26/26 Page 4 of 6

establishing or proving some fact at trial” and thus are not testimonial.21 The Fifth
Circuit has noted that there is a distinction between a document “created for the sole
purpose of providing evidence against a defendant and a document created to
authenticate or 	provide 	a 	copy 	of 	an 	otherwise 	admissible 	record.” 22 	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.23
Defendant argues that “the Government's motion improperly seeks a sweeping
pretrial determination that broad categories of evidence are categorically admissible
through a single omnibus ruling.”24 While not entirely clear, Defendant seemingly
contends that the “proposed ‘incident details reports,’ ‘daily activity reports,’ ‘police
reports,’ 	and 	extraction 	summaries 	constitute 	classic 	hearsay 	within 	hearsay
documents.” 25 While the Defendant argues that the Government is seeking an
impermissibly overbroad blanket ruling, 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 rading of
Rule 104 obliges the Court to do so. The Court finds that the proffered records and
21 Age, 136 F.4th at 226 (citation modified).
22 Id. at 227 (citation modified) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,
557 U.S. 305, 322-23, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009)) (emphasis in original).
23 See 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. 7 (collecting
cases).
24 R. Doc. 133 at p. 6.
25 Id. at p. 5.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 151 Filed 05/26/26 Page 5 of 6

certifications of authenticity meet the requirements of Rules 803(6), 902(11), 902(13),
and/or 902(14). As to the records which Defendant seemingly contends include
“hearsay within hearsay,” namely, the incident details reports, daily activity reports
and police reports, 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.26 The Court finds similarly
for the remaining documents which the Government seeks to authenticate.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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that the Motion is GRANTED as to the
authenticity of the records. Any other determination of the records’ admissibility is
deferred until trial.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 26, 2026.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
26 See R. Doc. 123-3 at pp. 5-6, 7-8, and 9-10.
27 See R. Doc. 123-3.
28 See also id. (“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 151 Filed 05/26/26 Page 6 of 6