“Reasonably-Responsive Excerpts” & Minimal Authentication – A Detailed Commentary on United States v. Cash (5th Cir. 2025)

I. Introduction

Case: United States v. Cash, No. 24-10243, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (8 Aug 2025).
Parties: United States of America (Appellee) v. Terrance Deshun Cash (Appellant).
Charges: Two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B).
Outcome: Convictions and 189-month sentence affirmed.

The decision, though unpublished, clarifies two recurring trial-management problems that surface in federal criminal practice:

1. The discretion a trial judge enjoys when a deliberating jury requests testimony, particularly when the court elects to provide only “excerpts.”
2. The low threshold for authentication of photographs and physical narcotics evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, together with allied rulings on the Best-Evidence Rule and the Confrontation Clause.

II. Summary of the Judgment

Cash raised five appellate issues. The panel (Judges Stewart, Clement, Wilson, per curiam) rejected each, holding:

• Jury Note Response: Reading excerpts of an officer’s testimony – even though the selection omitted the line most directly responsive to the note – was “reasonably responsive” and therefore within the court’s discretion.
• Photographs (Ex. 6): Officer identification based on personal observation satisfies Rule 901; defects go to weight, not admissibility.
• Physical drugs (Ex. 10): Another agent may authenticate through personal knowledge plus chain-of-custody testimony; again, the standard is “low.”
• Text-message paraphrase: No Best-Evidence violation where the testimony is based on personal recollection and not offered to prove the literal content.
• Statements of Ms. Davis: No Confrontation Clause or hearsay error because the testimony was elicited to explain the investigation and did not directly inculpate Cash.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Cantu, 185 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 1999) – supplies the “reasonably responsive” test for answers to jury questions. Cash extends Cantu by approving the use of excerpted transcripts even where the most direct line was omitted.
• United States v. Rose, 1999 WL 195232 and United States v. Alonzo, 681 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1982) – warn against the court’s intrusion into fact-finding when reading testimony. Cash distinguishes these cases and implicitly sets a ceiling: omission is permissible so long as nothing contradictory is withheld.
• United States v. Ceballos, 789 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2015) – states the “low burden” of authentication; cited to uphold admission of Exhibits 6 and 10.
• Kiva Kitchen & Bath v. Capital Distribution, 319 F. App’x 316 (5th Cir. 2009) – confirms that Rule 1002 applies only when the terms of a writing are at issue.
• Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024) – latest Supreme Court articulation of Confrontation doctrine; Cash uses its framework but finds no violation.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Jury-Note Doctrine (“Reasonably Responsive Excerpts”).
   The panel employed a two-step lens:
   • Was the district court’s selection of testimony “reasonably responsive” and non-prejudicial?
   • If erroneous, was the error harmless?
   Even though the omitted testimony would have squarely answered the jury’s question, the panel emphasized:

   “The district court left it up to the jury to decide whether the excerpts answered their question.” – Slip op. 6.

   Thus, an omission is harmless where (i) excerpts are non-misleading, (ii) contradictory testimony is not withheld, and (iii) the jury signals satisfaction.
2. Authentication of Exhibits 6 and 10.
   Echoing long-standing Fifth-Circuit precedent, the court reiterated that Rule 901 only requires evidence “sufficient to support a finding” of authenticity; after that, reliability is fodder for cross-examination. Key points:
   • Photographs: witness need not be photographer; personal observation of the item suffices (Okulaja).
   • Physical narcotics: chain-of-custody gaps affect weight, not admissibility; any agent with personal knowledge may authenticate.
3. Best-Evidence Rule.
   Because the agent’s paraphrase was used to show why he interpreted the relationship as a narcotics arrangement—not to prove the text’s exact wording—Rule 1002 never triggered.
4. Confrontation/Hearsay.
   Testimony about Ms. Davis’s statements was admitted for a non-hearsay purpose (explaining investigative steps and rebutting the defense suggestion that “Jason” was someone else). Under Kizzee, evidence that does not directly link the defendant to the charged crime is not testimonial hearsay.

C. Impact of the Judgment

Although unpublished, Cash will likely be quoted for two propositions:

1. “Reasonably-Responsive Excerpts” Rule. Trial courts may safely provide curated portions of testimony provided they neither mislead nor omit contradictory evidence. Cash supplies fresh language approving this approach even when the omitted portion is the most responsive sentence.
2. Re-affirmation of Minimal Authentication. The opinion is a convenient compendium of 5th-Circuit authorities (Ceballos, Jimenez-Lopez, Smith) that prosecutors can cite when faced with chain-of-custody or “you didn’t take the photo” objections.

In practice, counsel should:

• Object with specificity if they seek full transcripts; failure to identify conflicting testimony will be fatal on appeal.
• Recognize that authentication fights are uphill unless they can show actual unreliability, not mere gaps.
• Frame Confrontation objections around inculpatory linkage; statements admitted solely to explain investigation will seldom succeed.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Authentication (Rule 901): Think of it as a “gate-check.” Does the evidence look genuine enough for the jury to see it? Not: “Is it perfect?”
• Best-Evidence Rule (Rule 1002): Applies only when a party wants to prove what a document actually says. If a witness merely recalls the event the document describes, the rule is irrelevant.
• Confrontation Clause: Bars a hearsay statement that (1) is “testimonial,” (2) is offered for its truth, and (3) the declarant doesn’t testify and wasn’t cross-examined earlier. Cash fails at step (2).
• Harmless Error vs. Plain Error:
  • Harmless: Error preserved; reversal only if the mistake affected substantial rights.
  • Plain: Error unpreserved; defendant must show a clear error that affected the outcome and seriously affects the integrity of proceedings.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Cash may not carry a Federal Reporter citation, but its practical import is clear:

1. District judges retain broad leeway to answer juror questions with selected excerpts, provided the excerpts are balanced and the jury indicates satisfaction.
2. The Fifth Circuit once again labels authentication a “low burden,” easing admission of drug photos, seized narcotics, and other physical evidence.
3. Attacks premised on the Best-Evidence Rule and Confrontation Clause must be tightly tailored; generalized objections will not survive, particularly when the statements serve a non-hearsay investigative purpose.

For litigators, Cash supplies fresh ammunition: prosecutors gain comfortable precedent; defense counsel gain a roadmap of where objections fail—and therefore how to refine them in future trials. For trial judges, the opinion confirms that efficiency in responding to jury notes and in admitting routine evidence is not only permissible but, when done carefully, insulated from reversal.