Gov Uscourts Ded 82797 162 0

Case 1:23-cr-00061-MN Document 162 Filed 05/22/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2685
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 1:23-cr-61-MN
)
ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN, )
)
Defendant. )
REPLY TO DEFEDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADMIT RULE 1006

SUMMARY CHART AND FIND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
SELF-AUTHENTICATING PURSUANT TO RULE 902(14)
The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Reply in
support of the government’s motion (Doc. No. 120). In his Response, the defendant says he does
not object to the authenticity of the trial evidence because it “reflect[s] what investigators collected
and what existed at the time they obtained it.” Doc. No. 151 at p. 1, FN 1. The government therefore
respectfully requests that the Court enter its proposed order prior to trial so that the government
can finalize its exhibits and not require the attendance of unnecessary witnesses. 1
In the remainder of his Response, defense counsel demonstrates (1) they still do not
understand the electronic evidence in this case that they received in discovery last fall, and (2)
despite claiming they do, they actually have no evidence to give them “reasons to believe that data
has been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material.” Doc. No.
1
Federal Rule of Evidence 902 was amended to “set[] forth a procedure by which parties
can authenticate certain electronic evidence other than through the testimony of a foundation
witness,” and with the recognition that “the expense and inconvenience of producing an
authenticating witness” for certain types of records and data “is often unnecessary.” Fed. R. Evid.
902 advisory committee's note (2017). The Committee Notes on the Rules further state, “It is often
the case that a party goes to the expense of producing an authentication witness, and then the
adversary either stipulates authenticity before the witness is called or fails to challenge the
authentication testimony once it is presented. The amendment provides a procedure under which
the parties can determine in advance of trial whether a real challenge to authenticity will be made,
and can then plan accordingly.” Id.
151 at p. 1. None of what they claim in their Response is admissible in court, and the government
objects to any line of questioning suggesting the trial evidence may have been manipulated because
there is no foundation for such questions, they are also irrelevant, and even the inference posed by
such a question risks confusing the jury.
First, it should be noted that the defendant’s laptop and his iCloud data come from two
separate and independent sources.
Apple, Inc. provided the government with files, including iCloud 03 and iCloud 04, as referenced
in the summary chart. These files did not originate from his laptop. Instead, Apple iCloud 03 is a
backup of the defendant’s Apple iPad Pro and Apple iCloud 04 is a backup of the defendant’s
Apple iPhone XR. As shown in the 1006 summary chart, Doc. No. 158-2, the government is
introducing messages from these two devices from April 2018 through January 2019. Not only are
these two devices not the laptop, the evidence from these sources predates when the defendant
dropped his laptop off at a computer store on April 12, 2019 in a state of disrepair. See Search
Warrant Affidavit at ¶ 65, Case No. 19-30M. The defendant has not offered any conspiracy theory,
much less any evidence, regarding how or why Apple, Inc. produced manipulated data for his
iPhone and iPad.
Second, the data from the laptop that the government is utilizing is not only self-
authenticating, but it will be introduced with corroborating evidence at trial. Data that is included
in the 1006 summary chart is derived from the defendant’s Apple iCloud account, as denoted in
the source column, with two exceptions:
1
(1) Messages between the defendant and Witness 3, beginning in row 88 because the
defendant began using his ex-wife’s phone in October 2018 and her old phone was not
synced to his iCloud account. Witness 3 will testify to the authenticity of these
messages at trial.
(2) Messages in Row 85-86 (a message where the defendant says “I need more chore boy,”
which is used consistently in the message with how the defendant described “chore
boy” in his book), Rows 87 and 135-137 (messages where the defendant says he in
Delaware, which is consistent with his ATM withdrawal activity, location information
on photographs on his phone, and his admissions in his book), Row 214 (a photograph
of the defendant with a crack pipe in his hand), and 216-292 (videos and photographs
of the defendant with a crack pipe and drug messages from December to March 2019,
consistent with the defendant’s characterization of his activity in his book).
What are the messages the defendant is claiming were somehow retroactively planted into
his non-functional laptop, and what is the evidence of that? There is none. He has not shown any
of the actual evidence in this case is unreliable or inauthentic, because there is none.
Instead, the defendant’s theory about the laptop is a conspiracy theory with no supporting
evidence. The defendant cites a book written by John Mac Isaac, but apparently there is nothing
in the book where Mac Isaac says he “altered” or “compromised” data because no such passages
are quoted in the defendant’s response. The defendant is in a civil lawsuit with Mac Isaac and
deposed him, but cites no evidence from that case or deposition to support his claims of alteration.
The defendant next cites a Washington Post article and argues that a copy of data that Mac Isaac
apparently provided to at least one third party in August of 2020 which was later obtained by the
Washington Post reviewer was of poor forensic quality. But what the government is using in trial
are actual extractions by an FBI forensic specialist which were extracted after a technical
examination of the laptop in 2019, not whatever files were supposedly released by Mac Isaac in
August 2020 and were eventually obtained by the Washington Post after who-knows-what was
added to them by third parties that have nothing to do with this criminal case. The defendant also
relies on an allegation that a Russian businessman told a third-party that Biden’s devices were
2
compromised by FSB during his 2014 trip to Kazakhstan. This is yet another example of the
defendant asking people to believe Russian intelligence when it suits his interests, but not to
believe Russian intelligence when it doesn’t suit his interests. None of this hearsay on hearsay is
evidence, and none of it demonstrates that the actual trial evidence was altered. Any questioning
suggesting this would be without a foundation.
The lack of any basis for his claims is further underscored by the fact that the defendant
has indicated he has no reciprocal discovery. The defendant has had the laptop data in its raw,
original form since September 2023, but has provided the government with no evidence of its
manipulation or alteration. He has not provided any evidence or information that shows that his
laptop contains false information, and the government’s evidence shows the opposite – the
defendant’s laptop is real (it will be introduced as a trial exhibit) and it contains significant
evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see 1006 summary chart). Moreover, the evidence on his laptop
is corroborated by independent sources including witnesses, like Witness 3 who will confirm the
authenticity of the messages. It is also corroborated by the defendant’s own admissions in his book
which are consistent with the evidence on the laptop, photographs and videos of the defendant
himself, and evidence obtained from third parties, such as his bank statements and Apple, Inc.,
which match information on his laptop. Any argument that suggests his laptop is not authentic
would be inappropriate because there is no foundation for such questioning, and it risks creating
juror confusion about the evidence actually at issue in this case.
The government requests that the Court grant the motion because the records are self-
authenticating. The government further requests that the Court prohibit the defendant from
suggesting that the electronic evidence is fabricated, manipulated, altered, or inauthentic because
he has not offered any evidence supporting such a claim.
3
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID C. WEISS
Special Counsel
United States Department of Justice
By:
____________________________________
Derek E. Hines
Senior Assistant Special Counsel
Leo J. Wise
Principal Senior Assistant Special Counsel
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
771-217-6091
Dated: May 22, 2024

Gov Uscourts Ded 82797 162 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gov Uscourts Ded 82797 162 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gov Uscourts Ded 82797 162 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cr-00061-MN Document 162 Filed 05/22/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2685

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

REPLY TO DEFEDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADMIT RULE 1006

such a question risks confusing the jury.

separate and independent sources.

iPhone and iPad.

the source column, with two exceptions:

suggesting this would be without a foundation.

juror confusion about the evidence actually at issue in this case.

he has not offered any evidence supporting such a claim.

You might also like