Gregory Chandler on Foundation to Testify

This is an interesting case dealing with the ability of a witness to testify on a subject. The case is United States v. Famania-Roche, 537 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2008). The Court

affirmed drug convictions, holding that a cooperating witness had sufficient personal knowledge of the inner workings of a drug conspiracy to testify that the defendant controlled a certain drug point and to describe quantities of drugs sold at different drug points on a weekly basis. The witness operated her own drug point, was present at the place where the conspirators gathered to discuss the drugs they sold at various drug points, and had personally seen the defendant sell drugs to customers she sent to him.

In a similar case, United States v. Munoz, 487 F. 3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007), the Court affirmed convictions of former bank executives for bank fraud, finding no abuse of discretion in permitting an officer of the affected bank to testify regarding board meetings nearly 20 years previously. Statements such as, "I don't recall that it was discussed. I believed that if it was discussed I would remember and it was not reflected in the minutes," provided a sufficient showing that the witness had enough recall to testify from his personal knowledge about information given to the board.

GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law