Comment by James Michael Garner
Prior to the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts had disagreed on whether the hearsay rule excluded evaluative reports from evidence. To resolve this conflict, the Federal Rules Advisory Committee proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provided that ‘factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law are not excluded by the hearsay rule , unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.’ The Advisory Committee indicated that courts should analyze the admissibility of such reports on a case-by-case basis with a rebuttable presumption in favor of admission. The Advisory Committee's Note revealed its intent that evaluative reports should be reviewed and admitted it all relevant factors indicate a trustworthy document. However, the analysis offered by the Advisory Committee did not resolve the judicial struggle with the admissibility of evaluative reports.
Rule 803(8)(C) has not eliminated the confusion with respect to evaluative reports. Currently, the federal circuit courts are split over the interpretation of the phrase ‘factual findings.’ The majority view among the circuits is to read the phrase broadly so as to admit facts as well as opinions based on those facts. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits are in the minority and read the phrase strictly to exclude opinions. This split will soon be resolved; the Supreme Court recently granted a writ of certiorari to consider the Eleventh Circuit's decision to read Rule 803(8)(C) strictly in Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp. This Comment suggests that the proper interpretation of Rule 803(8)(C) falls between the extremes illustrated by the present split in the federal circuit courts. The phrase ‘factual findings' should be read to include all facts either observed or objectively determined by the investigator. It should not include conclusions of law or conclusions based on evidence that would not have been admissible at trial. The Comment will first review the historical approach to admitting public documents and the legislative history of Rule 803(8). The Comment will then examine the competing judicial views in the debate over the meaning of the phrase ‘factual findings.’
About the Author
James Michael Garner.
Citation
63 Tul. L. Rev. 121 (1988)