Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
75. How should the court rule on the report's admissibility?
A farmer has sued a neighbor for starting a fire that burned down the farmer's barn. At trial, the farmer offers, under the public records exception, a properly authenticated copy of the fire marshal's official report, which found that the neighbor started the fire. The report states that this conclusion is based on the fire marshal's extensive training in fire investigation, on the fire marshal's examination of the scene, and on interviews with numerous witnesses. The report quotes one witness as saying, «I saw [the neighbor] light the match that started the fire.» The neighbor objects to the admission of the report.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. While the report is generally admissible, the witness's statement quoted in the report is not admissible under the public records exception because the witness is not a public official reporting matters observed pursuant to a legal duty. Therefore, the portion of the report that quotes that statement must be excised before the report is admitted.
C is incorrect. The neighbor is being sued in a civil action. The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation protects defendants only in criminal cases; it does not protect the neighbor in this civil action.
D is incorrect. Public officials may rely on bystander statements and hearsay in making factual findings. To the extent that a public official's factual findings rest only on such hearsay, those findings could be excluded for a lack of trustworthiness under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(B). Here, the fire marshal's factual findings rest on his significant experience, as well as his examination of the scene, and would not be excludable solely due to some reliance on hearsay.