499 U.S. 153 (1988)
The litigation arose from the July 13, 1982 crash of a Navy T-34C Turbo-Mentor aircraft at Middleton Field, Alabama, during touch-and-go exercises.1 Lieutenant Commander Barbara Ann Rainey, a flight instructor, and her student Ensign Donald Bruce Knowlton were killed when the plane banked sharply right after a premature left turn, lost altitude, and crashed.2
The surviving spouses of the pilots filed a product liability action against Beech Aircraft Corporation, the manufacturer, and Beech Aerospace Services, Inc., which serviced the plane, alleging that a defect in the fuel control system caused an engine rollback and loss of power.3 Because the aircraft was destroyed and there were no survivors, the cause of the accident could not be determined from the available evidence.4 The defense presented an investigative JAG Report prepared by Lieutenant Commander William Morgan pursuant to Navy authority.5
The report contained sections on findings of fact, opinions, and recommendations, including statements that the engine was operating at reduced power at impact and that the most probable cause was the pilots' failure to maintain proper interval, while noting the possibility of rollback.6 Five or six months after the accident, plaintiff John Rainey, the deceased pilot's husband and a Navy flight instructor, sent a letter to Morgan outlining his own investigation and concluding that the most probable cause was a loss of useful power due to a pneumatic sensing or fuel flow malfunction.7
At trial, the defense called Rainey as an adverse witness and questioned him about portions of the letter concerning his wife's attempt to cancel the flight and a hard right turn by the aircrew.8 On cross-examination, the court sustained an objection to a question asking whether Rainey had stated in the letter that rollback was the most probable primary cause.9 After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.10 A panel of the Eleventh Circuit reversed, and on rehearing en banc the court divided evenly on one issue while unanimously holding that the district court erred in restricting cross-examination.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) extends to conclusions and opinions contained in public investigatory reports?13
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) excepts from the hearsay rule reports of public offices setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. Such reports are admissible unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.14 The phrase factual findings includes factually based conclusions or opinions that flow from a factual investigation.15
Yes. The JAG Report prepared by Lieutenant Commander William Morgan pursuant to Navy authority contained opinions, including the conclusion that the most probable cause of the accident was the pilots' failure to maintain proper interval. The trial court found the report trustworthy and admitted the report's conclusions regarding the probable cause of the accident.16 The language of the Rule refers to reports setting forth factual findings, and the Advisory Committee notes support admissibility of evaluative reports subject to the trustworthiness requirement.17
The distinction between fact and opinion is one of degree and not a basis for exclusion under the Rule.18
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to the Rule 803(8)(C) issue.19
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit on cross-examination testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct?20
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 106, when a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.21 The rule of completeness prevents distortion from out-of-context presentation of statements.22
Yes. The defense called John Rainey as an adverse witness and questioned him about portions of his letter to Lieutenant Commander Morgan concerning his wife's attempt to cancel the flight and the hard right turn. On cross-examination, the court sustained an objection to a question about the portion of the letter stating that the most probable primary cause was rollback. This created a distorted impression that Rainey did not believe in his theory of power failure, and the court abused its discretion in restricting the cross-examination.23
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the cross-examination issue.24
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice O'connor
Chief Justice Rehnquist joined Parts I and II of the Court's opinion but dissented from Part III.25 He believed the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit this particular testimony.26 Counsel's brief presentation to the District Court was ambiguous at best.27
The trial judge's understanding of the argument as one based on fairness or waiver was reasonable.28 The Court is not in a position to say the ruling was an abuse of discretion based on a cold record.29