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.
5. With this foundation, are the graphs admissible?
At trial, the fisherman testified to the care with which he had made the measurements and recorded them in his logs, which had been made available for the defendant's inspection. The draftsman then testified to the manner in which he had prepared the graphs.
For 15 years, a commercial fisherman had kept a daily log of the water level at his dock on the riverbank opposite the land in order to forecast fishing conditions. The plaintiff hired a draftsman to graph the data from the fisherman's logs for use as a trial exhibit.
A plaintiff sued a defendant over title to land on a riverbank. Changes in the water level over time were important to the plaintiff's case.
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
Under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, FRE 803(6), a record is admissible if it was made in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and it was customary to make that type of entry (i.e., that the entrant had a duty to make the entry). The record itself must also have been maintained in conjunction with a business activity.
C is correct. The graphs are admissible under FRE 1006 permitting a summary, chart, or calculation to be used instead of voluminous records that would be inconvenient to produce in court. The proper foundation has been laid because the original logs were made available to the defendant for inspection, and the fisherman testified to the accuracy with which the graphs were prepared by the draftsman.
A is incorrect. The original documents — the fisherman's logs — would be admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. A summary (here, the graphs) is admissible if the original voluminous records would be admissible under the hearsay rules. It is true that if the originals were inadmissible hearsay, a summary of them would also be inadmissible. But because the underlying documents fall within a hearsay exception, the graphs are also admissible.
B is incorrect. On the contrary, the best evidence rule may be satisfied in the event that a document meets the voluminous records exception. As explained above, a summary of voluminous records may be a proper substitute as evidence. The nature of the best evidence rule is to ensure that original copies of documents are used because they are superior and trustworthy. These interests are protected when the proper foundation is laid under this exception.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The graphs are admissible, but not because they amount to an expert opinion. A summary of voluminous records is sometimes accompanied by expert witness testimony, but this is not required. Here, the fisherman is the testimonial sponsor of the graphs, which were prepared by the draftsman, who was not an expert on water levels. He simply prepared the graphs based on the original logs. Therefore, the summary is not admissible because it is an expert opinion. Rather, it is admissible as a summary of business records.