Also known as: business records · public records · business record · public record · business records exception · official records exception
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
Documents created and maintained in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity. These records qualify for admission into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when they meet the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).
Documents created by a public agency under legal authority. These records qualify for admission into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when they meet the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
Documents created and maintained in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity. These records qualify for admission into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when they meet the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).
After a derailment, railroad employees at Brighton Manufacturing prepare an internal report following their usual practice. The report is created mainly because litigation is anticipated. When offered at trial, the court excludes it because the primary purpose was not the regular conduct of the railroad business.
Documents created by a public agency under legal authority. These records qualify for admission into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when they meet the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
Beacon Bank receives full payment from Belinda Baxter on her home loan. The bank executes a satisfaction document and records it in the county land records. Baxter later sells the property to a buyer who searches those records and confirms clear title before closing.
A lawyer representing Brighton Manufacturing in a product liability suit issues a press release stating only the identity of the parties and the claims involved. The statement draws solely from information already on file in the public court docket.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A grand jury subpoenas financial ledgers from a law firm partnership. The partner in possession claims a Fifth Amendment privilege. The court orders production because the records belong to the entity rather than any single individual.
In 1955 or 1956, Isadore Bellis formed the law firm of Bellis, Kolsby & Wolf in Philadelphia with two other partners. The firm employed six additional staff members, including two attorneys, and maintained its financial records in Bellis’s office under the supervision of his secretary acting as bookkeeper and an independent accountant. Bellis served as the senior partner until late 1969, when he left to join another firm and the partnership dissolved, although winding up of its affairs continued. After leaving, Bellis left the former partnership’s financial records with Kolsby and Wolf at the original premises. More than three years later, in February or March 1973, Bellis’s secretary, acting on his or his attorney’s direction, removed the records and brought them to his new office. On May 1, 1973, Bellis received a subpoena directing him to appear before a federal grand jury and produce all partnership records for the years 1968 and 1969. Bellis appeared on May 9, 1973, but refused to produce the records, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Following a hearing in the District Court on May 9 and 10, the court ruled that the privilege did not apply to the partnership records and ordered their production by May 16. Upon his continued refusal before the grand jury, the District Court held Bellis in civil contempt. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the contempt finding in a per curiam opinion on July 9, 1973. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 15, 1973, after staying the mandate, to address the Fifth Amendment issue presented by the subpoena for the partnership records.
View case2 common questions
The record must have been made at or near the time of the event by someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and it must have been the regular practice of that activity to make the record.
When the primary purpose of creating the record is litigation rather than the regular conduct of the enterprise's business, the exception does not apply even if the record follows ordinary internal procedures.
A federal safety agency issues a report after investigating a factory explosion at Blue Horizon Industries. The report contains both factual observations and the agency's conclusions about the cause. In a later civil suit, the report is offered against the government and admitted after the court finds it trustworthy.
Bright Path Foods pays off a mortgage held by another lender on property owned by Bernard Bass. The payment triggers subrogation by operation of law. Bass requests and receives a written assignment that is then recorded in the public land records to establish the new priority position.
1 common questions
Yes, provided the report results from an investigation authorized by law and the court determines the report is trustworthy. The exception covers both factual observations and the agency's conclusions.
…case. Most of the hearsay exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial — for example, business records or statements in furtherance of a conspiracy. We do not infer from these that the Framers thought exceptions would apply even to prior testimony. Cf. Lilly v. Virginia , 527 U. S. 116, 134…