- 82 -
because petitioner cited that article in his trial memorandum and
furnished a copy to respondent approximately two weeks prior to
the trial of these cases. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner
were to satisfy the third and fifth conditions (set forth above)
which are imposed by rule 803(24) of the Federal Rules of Evi-
dence and to which petitioner's argument is addressed, he has not
attempted to show that the other conditions for admissibility of
the newspaper article that are imposed by rule 803(24) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence are satisfied.
For example, we are not persuaded that the newspaper article
possesses circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent
to other classes of hearsay governed by rule 803 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. The statement in that article concerning
"back-to-back loan structures" seems to be nothing more than a
repetition of what the declarant in the newspaper article was
told by Price Waterhouse, which clearly is hearsay, and the mere
fact of its publication in a newspaper is not in itself suffi-
cient to establish its trustworthiness. Cf. Meschino v. North
American Drager, Inc., 841 F.2d 429, 434 (1st Cir. 1988). Be-
cause we find that the newspaper article does not possess cir-
cumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to other
classes of admissible hearsay, we need not consider the other
requirements of rule 803(24) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
55(...continued)
not allow because of potential prejudice to respondent.
Page: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011