Also known as: opposing party's statement · opposing party statement · statement of an opposing party · party-opponent statement · admission by party-opponent · party admission · opposing party admission
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A non-hearsay statement offered against an opposing party. The statement qualifies when made by the party in an individual or representative capacity, when the party manifested adoption or belief in its truth, when made by a person authorized by the party, when made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of the relationship and while it existed, or when made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Summit Builders sued the State Department of Transportation for wrongful termination. During a project meeting the department's project supervisor stated that specification errors caused most overruns. Summit offered the statement at trial to prove liability. Because the statement qualified as an opposing party's statement, the court admitted it without requiring the foundation steps that would apply to an ordinary witness's prior inconsistent statement.
The government prosecuted Zhyltsou for narcotics offenses and sought to introduce a VK social-media page containing his name, photograph, and biographical details. The page was offered against Zhyltsou to show his identity and activities. Because the information constituted an opposing party's statement, the court treated it as non-hearsay once the government supplied evidence linking Zhyltsou to the page.
No. Rule 613(b) expressly states that its requirement of an opportunity to explain or deny does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2). The statement may be offered through extrinsic evidence without first confronting the declarant.
Supporting sources
The proponent must show that the statement was made by the opposing party's agent or employee, concerned a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, and was made while the relationship existed. No personal knowledge or authorization is required beyond those elements.
Supporting sources
No. Even if the statement would otherwise meet the criteria of Rule 801(d)(2), the separate exclusion for compromise negotiations bars its use to prove liability or the amount of a claim. The more specific policy exclusion controls.
Supporting sources
Yes. The proponent must still satisfy Rule 901 by producing evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims. The non-hearsay status under Rule 801(d)(2) does not relieve the authentication burden.
Supporting sources