USA v. Claus

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-155
CHRISTIAN CONRAD CLAUS 	SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	government’s 	motions 	in 	limine 	for 	a
determination that records meet the requirements of Federal Rules of
Evidence 803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and/or 902(14).1 Defendant opposes the
motions. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motions.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2024, the government filed an indictment charging
Christian Conrad Claus with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and
wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349; one
count of wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343;
one count of mail fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1341; one count of conspiracy to use a facility in interstate commerce in aid
of bribery in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371; one count
1 	R. Docs. 31, 51.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 8

2
of use of a facility in interstate commerce in aid of bribery in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3); and false statement in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2). 2 Claus pled not guilty to
the charges in the indictment, 3 and his trial is scheduled for March 16, 2026. 4
The government now moves for a determination that records meet the
requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and
902(14). 	Such an order would allow the records to be admitted, subject to
Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, without the need to call record
custodians. 	Defendant 	opposes 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	proposed
application of Rules 803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and 902(14) violates the
Confrontation Clause. 	Defendant additionally opposes the admission of
Google location history records through certificate. The Court considers the
motions.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The Court first addresses defendant’s Confrontation Clause argument.
The Court then turns to whether the records are admissible under the cited
Federal Rules of Evidence.
2 	R. Doc. 1.
3 	R. Doc. 10.
4 	R. Doc. 46.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 8

3
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.” United States v.
Age, 136 F.4th 193, 226 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Ayelotan,
917 F.3d 394, 403 (5th Cir. 2019)). 	This “prohibition applies only if the
statements are testimonial.” Id. (quoting United States v. Ayelotan, 917 F.3d
394, 403 (5th Cir. 2019).
At the outset, none of the records that the government seeks to admit
here is testimonial. All the proposed records were “created in the ordinary
course of business, not ‘for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact
at trial.’” Id. (stating that phone records are not testimonial); see also United
States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that business
records are not testimonial); United States v. Herrera, 466 F. App’x 409,
426 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding that bank records were non-testimonial business
records).
Here, the defendant argues that the certificates themselves violate the
Confrontation Clause. 	As defendant acknowledges, such an argument is
foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Age. 136 F.4th 193. There, the
Fifth Circuit stated that “[a]s the Supreme Court has made clear, there is a
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 8

4
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.’” 	Id. at 227 (quoting
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 322-23 (2009)). 	The Fifth
Circuit held that the latter, which is the type of document at issue here, was
not testimonial and therefore not subject to the Confrontation Clause. 	Id.5
Accordingly, in line with Fifth Circuit precedent, this Court holds that the
Rule 902 certificates in this case do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
5 	As the government notes, the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Age is not
unique. See United States v. Denton, 944 F.3d 170, 184 (4th Cir. 2019)
(stating that Melendez-Diaz “makes clear that the Sixth Amendment
right to confront witnesses does not include the right to confront a
records custodian who submits a Rule 902(11) certification of a record
that was created in the course of a regularly conducted business
activity”) (quoting United States v. Mallory, 461 F. App’x 352, 357 (4th
Cir. 2012)); United States v. Ellis, 460 F.3d 920, 927 (7th Cir. 2006)
(noting that “it would be odd to hold that the foundational evidence
authenticating [non-testimonial] evidence” is itself testimonial 	in
holding 	that 	certificates 	presented 	under 	Rule 	902(11) 	are
nontestimonial); United States v. Johnson, 688 F.3d 494, 505 (8th Cir.
2012) 	(concluding 	that 	a 	certification 	of 	authenticity 	was 	not
testimonial and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause);
United States v. Albino-Loe, 747 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673, 678-80 (10th Cir. 2011)
(“we agree with other circuits who have held that certificates of
authenticity presented under Rule 	902(11) are 	not testimonial”);
United States v. Clotaire, 963 F.3d 1288, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020) (“we
join other circuits in concluding that business records certificates are
not testimonial”).
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 8

5
b. 	Authenticity Through Certifications
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	104 	obliges 	the 	Court 	to 	“decide 	any
preliminary question about whether . . . evidence is admissible.” 	Fed. R.
Evid. 104(a). 	Federal Rule of Evidence 803 outlines exceptions to the rule
against hearsay, exceptions which apply regardless of whether the declarant
is available as a witness. 	Rule 803(6) provides that records of a regularly
conducted activity “are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless
of whether the declarant is available as a witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803. The
Rule provides that such records are 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.
Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
Here, the government seeks a preliminary determination that certain
records are authentic through certification obtained from the custodian of
record. Federal Rule of Evidence 902 lists “items of evidence [that] are self-
authenticating” 	meaning 	that 	“they 	require 	no 	extrinsic 	evidence 	of
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 8

6
authenticity to be admitted.” Among the items of evidence listed are certified
domestic records of a regularly conducted activity, Fed. R. Evid. 902(11),
certified records generated by an electronic process or system, Fed. R. Evid.
902(13), 	and 	certified 	data 	copied 	from 	an 	electronic 	device, 	storage
medium, or file, Fed. R. Evid. 902(14). 	All three record types require a
“certification of the custodian or another qualified person” and the record
must meet the requirements of Rule 803(A)-(C). Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), (13)-
(14).
The 	government 	seeks 	an 	order 	that 	the 	following 	records 	are
authentic and meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6),
902(11), 	902(13), 	and 	902(14): 	records 	of 	accounts 	associated 	with
defendant from American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, and US
Bank; record of an iCloud account from Apple; records associated with
Michael Schofield, an alleged co-conspirator, from Check City; records
submitted by defendant from Clark County; a shipment record from FedEx;
records of an account associated with Magnolia Mansion LLC from First
Bank and Trust; subscriber information, location history records, billing
information, Google photos records and the associated Metadata, and Gmail
records of specific Google accounts, and specific emails, all from Google;
records received from defendant from the International Association of Chiefs
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 6 of 8

7
of Police; records of accounts, applications, and loans associated with
defendant from Rocket Mortgage, LLC; and records associated with specific
telephone numbers from Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.6 	The government
has provided certificates from custodians at American Express/Datamark,
Apple, Bank of America, Capital One, N.A. (“Capital One”), Check City, Clark
County, FedEx, First Bank & Trust Company, Google, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, Rocket Central, Sprint, T-Mobile, US Bank,
NA (“US Bank”), Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), and
Verizon.7
Defendant argues that the Google location history records should not
be admissible through a certificate. 	Defendant contends that such records
do not document business transactions. Defendant attempts to distinguish
these records from cell phone toll data, a distinction which the government
argues is inapt. Like cell phone tower location data, Google location history
data is used and stored by Google for “commercial purposes.” United States
v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817, 824 (5th Cir. 2024) (citing Wells v. State, 675 S.W.3d
814, 830 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023), aff’d, 714 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. Crim. App.
2025)); cf. United States v. Johnson, 2022 WL 17728927 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16,
6 	R. Docs. 31-2, 51-2.
7 	R. Docs. 31-3, 51-3.
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 7 of 8

8
2022) (Polster, J.) (granting motion 	in limine 	to authenticate Google
geographical coordinates under Rules 803(6) and 902(11) and holding that
using certificates for such records does not violate the Confrontation Clause).
The Court finds there to be no relevant distinction between the two types of
data. Accordingly, the Court finds that Google location history records may
be authenticated through a certificate of authenticity.
The Court finds that the proffered records and certifications meet the
requirements of Rules 803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and/or 902(14). This ruling
does not preclude defendant from making objections to admissibility on
other (i.e., non-authenticity) grounds.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the government’s
motions in limine.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of January, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8th
Case 2:24-cr-00155-WBV-DPC Document 71 Filed 01/08/26 Page 8 of 8