Any book, paper, statement, record, account, writing, or other document, or any portion thereof, of whatever character and in whatever form, as well as any copy thereof equally with the original, which is not in the United States shall, when duly certified as provided in section 3494 of this title, be admissible in evidence in any criminal action or proceeding in any court of the United States if the court shall find, from all the testimony taken with respect to such foreign document pursuant to a commission executed under section 3492 of this title, that such document (or the original thereof in case such document is a copy) satisfies the authentication requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, unless in the event that the genuineness of such document is denied, any party to such criminal action or proceeding making such denial shall establish to the satisfaction of the court that such document is not genuine. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to require authentication under the provisions of section 3494 of this title of any such foreign documents which may otherwise be properly authenticated by law.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. William Howard Garland, 991 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. §§ 3491 , 3505. 8 The content of the proposition to be noticed is limited to the existence of detailed official findings of fact by the court in Ghana, findings which are relevant to the defendant’s claim of no intent to defraud.”
United States v. Sharif Alwan, 279 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Section 3492 provides a process for a consular official to certify foreign documents; § 3493 provides for a deposition to authenticate foreign documents, but that process is not relevant in this case; and § 3494 provides for the certification of foreign documents, which is also…”
United States v. John Robert Hay, 527 F.2d 990 (10th Cir. 1976).
“Depositions to ' authenticate foreign documents, including business records, have long been authorized by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3491 — 94, but such a deposition had never been taken in Switzerland and the statutes had never been interpreted in a reported opinion.”
United States v. Hay, 376 F. Supp. 264 (D. Colo. 1974).
· cites it 5× “The deposition was taken under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3491 -§ 3494, and, although the underlying statute was enacted in 1936, no reported case passes on its constitutionality or interprets it.”
United States v. Milan Confesor Rodriguez Serrate, 534 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1976).
“Appellant contends that since the documents are official in nature it was improper for the court to admit them in reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3491 3 which he asserts applies only to unofficial foreign documents.”
United States v. Gorder, 332 F. Supp. 1403 (D. Minnesota 1971).
“18 U.S.C. § 3491 apparently refers only to foreign documents, but it cross references itself to 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.