Electronic Data Compilations as Self-Authenticating Business Records: United States v. Conde

Introduction

The Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Conde, 22-250 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2025), clarifies the scope of the business-records exception to the hearsay rule when applied to electronically stored information. The defendant, Salifou Conde, was convicted in the Southern District of New York of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), and conspiracy to commit both (18 U.S.C. § 1349). On appeal, he challenged the admission of a one-page record from Optimum (the cable/internet provider) showing three credit-card payments for an account in his name and address. He argued that (1) the document was not a “business record” under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); (2) the proffered certification under Rule 902(11) was inadequate; and (3) its admission violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The Second Circuit rejected each contention and affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court held that:

The Optimum Payment Record qualified as a business record under Rule 803(6) because it was generated and maintained in the regular course of Optimum’s business, reflecting contemporaneous data entries by personnel with knowledge of customer payments.
The accompanying custodian’s certification satisfied Rule 902(11), making the printout self-authenticating without live testimony from Optimum personnel.
The fact that the record was extracted from a computer database in response to a government subpoena—and even included a note that some queried transactions could not be matched—did not render it untrustworthy or “prepared for litigation.”
Because properly admitted business records under Rule 803(6) are non-testimonial, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated.
Accordingly, the district court’s admission of the Optimum record was not an abuse of discretion, and Conde’s convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) Advisory Committee Notes (1972, 2011) – Recognizing “data compilations” and “electronically stored information” as within the definition of “record.”
Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) – Permitting self-authentication of business records by written certification.
Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 1994) – Foundation for Rule 803(6) in the electronic context.
United States v. Komasa, 767 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2014) – Affirming that a custodian need not have personal knowledge of the creation of underlying documents when offering business records under Rule 803(6).
United States v. D’Agostino, 638 F. App’x 51 (2d Cir. 2016) – Confirming that printouts generated shortly before trial remain business records if the underlying data were recorded contemporaneously.
Parallel rulings in other circuits (e.g., Burgos-Montes, Battles, Nixon, Fujii, Keck) reinforcing that database queries and computerized summaries are admissible under Rule 803(6) when they rest on records kept in the normal course of business.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeded in several steps:

Definition of “Record.” Rule 803(6) applies to “a record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis,” including “data compilations, in any form.” Rule 101(b)(4) clarifies that “record” encompasses “a memorandum, report, or data compilation” whether on paper or in electronic form.
Timing and Regularity (Rule 803(6)(A)–(C)). The record must have been (A) made at or near the time by someone with knowledge, (B) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and (C) made as a regular practice of that activity. Here, Optimum’s database automatically logged every credit-card payment to customer accounts on the date and in the amount tendered.
Authentication (Rule 803(6)(D) and 902(11)). A qualified custodian certified under oath that the one-page printout accurately reflected Optimum’s business records. Rule 902(11) makes such a certification sufficient to authenticate a record without live testimony, provided it complies with Rule 803(6)(A)–(C).
Trustworthiness (Rule 803(6)(E)). The defendant failed to show that the source or method of creation was untrustworthy. The notation “Unable to identify subscriber” as to other dates and card numbers did not undermine the reliability of matched entries for the three 2018 payments; it simply explained why no data were provided for those older transactions.
No Confrontation Violation. Properly admitted business records are non-testimonial, so the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause does not bar their admission.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces that modern business-records principles extend fully to electronic data compilations:

Businesses can rely on customer-service databases to generate admissible records of transactions without producing voluminous underlying paper files.
Law enforcement and litigants may serve subpoenas for targeted queries in electronic systems and admit the resulting printouts under Rule 803(6) and Rule 902(11).
Attempted challenges based solely on the timing of retrieval or the notion that summaries were “prepared for litigation” will fail if the underlying data satisfy the regular-course-of-business requirements.
Courts will continue to interpret “records” to include dynamic electronic entries, obviating the need for witnesses to explain routine computerized processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.
Business-Records Exception (Rule 803(6)): An exception to hearsay for records made and kept in the ordinary course of business at or near the time of the events recorded, by employees or systems with first-hand knowledge.
Self-Authenticating Record (Rule 902(11)): A domestic business record certified under oath by a qualified custodian; requires no live witness to establish authenticity at trial.
Data Compilation: Any systematic collection of information—whether on paper, microfilm, or in a computer database—that constitutes a “record” under the Evidence Rules.
Confrontation Clause: The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” It does not apply to non-testimonial business records.

Conclusion

United States v. Conde confirms that the Federal Rules of Evidence accommodate present-day technologies by treating electronic transaction logs and database queries as business records when they meet the criteria of Rule 803(6). A proper certification under Rule 902(11) renders such records self-authenticating. The decision thus offers clear guidance for prosecutors, defense counsel, and businesses: electronically stored payment data and customer-account logs, retrieved in response to subpoenas or litigation demands, remain admissible so long as they were created and maintained in the ordinary course of business and bear sufficient indicia of reliability. Through this ruling, the Second Circuit modernizes the hearsay analysis and reinforces the balance between evidentiary efficiency and the protection of defendants’ rights.