- 21 -
agency under rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The
cases respondent cites all involve written documents. See Yaich
v. United States, 283 F.2d 613, 616 (9th Cir. 1960) (selective
service file); Olender v. United States, 210 F.2d 795, 801-802
(9th Cir. 1954) (file containing affidavits, investigator
reports, and bank reports); Wong Wing Foo v. McGrath, 196 F.2d
120, 123 (9th Cir. 1952) (transcript of an administrative
hearing); Vanadium Corp. of Am. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 159
F.2d 105, 108-109 (2d Cir. 1947) (written interdepartmental
communications). Contrary to respondent's position, Professor
Wigmore concludes that a statement should be in writing to be
admitted under the common law public records exception. Wigmore
on Evidence, sec. 1633(5), at 623 (1974).
We conclude that Hodges' and Hogue's oral testimony is not
admissible under rule 803(8)(C) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
3. Whether Hodges' and Hogue's Oral Testimony Is
Admissible Under Rule 803(24) of the Federal Rules
of Evidence, the Residual Exception to the Hearsay Rule
a. Background
Respondent contends that Hodges' and Hogue's testimony is
admissible under rule 803(24) of the Federal Rules of Evidence,2
2 Fed. R. Evid. 803(24) provides an exception to the hearsay
rule for:
A statement not specifically covered by any of
the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if
the court determines that (A) the statement is
(continued...)
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011