- 84 -
(National Office) was aware that it was popular at that time.
Even assuming arguendo that the August 1987 memorandum were
relevant to petitioner's constitutional and abuse of discretion
claims, we disagree with petitioner that that memorandum is
admissible for the purposes for which he has offered it under any
of the exceptions to the hearsay rule upon which he relies.
We consider first whether the August 1987 memorandum is
admissible under rules 803(8) and 803(24) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence to show that the pattern of financing described in Rev.
Rul. 87-89, supra, was popular at the time that ruling was is-
sued. We conclude that the August 1987 memorandum is not admis-
sible under rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That
rule permits introduction of statements of public agencies set-
ting forth, inter alia, matters observed pursuant to a duty
imposed by law as to which there was a duty to report or factual
findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to author-
ity granted by law. Petitioner has made no showing that the
statements in the August 1987 memorandum were recorded pursuant
to a duty to report or that they are factual findings from an
investigation made pursuant to legal authority.
Petitioner argues in a conclusory manner on brief that the
conditions for admissibility imposed by rule 803(24) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence are satisfied. As was true of his
evidentiary arguments relating to the newspaper article, peti-
tioner contends on brief that the admission of the August 1987
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011