- 11 -
not present any arguments that the records received into evidence
were unreliable.
C. Copies of Checks From Dollarhide
Petitioners further claimed that copies of checks from
Dollarhide offered by respondent were not a complete record since
they were only copies of the front of the checks and not the back
of the checks. Checks are admissible as commercial paper under
Fed. R. Evid. 902(9). “A check is a negotiable instrument, a
legally operative document, and falls within the category of
‘verbal acts’ which are excludable from the hearsay rule.”
Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124 (citing Advisory
Committee’s Note to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c)).
Furthermore, checks are self-authenticating documents under Fed.
R. Evid. 902(9). United States v. Hawkins, 905 F.2d 1489, 1494
(11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Little, 567 F.2d 346 n.1 (8th
Cir. 1977). Self-authenticating documents are not considered
hearsay. Since the checks are admissible documents, copies of
the checks are admissible under Rule 143(d). See Fed. R. Evid.
1003. Petitioners’ contention does not impugn the authenticity
of the original, nor have they shown that the introduction of the
checks copies would be unfair. In the present case, it is not
necessary that copies of both the front and the back of the check
be presented for the copies of the front of the check to be
admitted into evidence. See United States v. Hawkins, supra at
1494.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011