286 F.2d 388, 391-392 (5th Cir. 1961)
In July 1957, the clock tower of the Dallas County Courthouse in Selma, Alabama collapsed on a Sunday morning, causing over $100,000 in damage but no injuries.1 Dallas County attributed the collapse to a lightning strike five days earlier on July 2, based on reports from residents and the State Toxicologist's findings of char in the debris.2 The county's insurers, including Commercial Union Assurance Co., concluded after investigation that the collapse resulted from structural weaknesses, poor construction, deterioration, and overloading, with the char stemming from an earlier fire.3
Dallas County sued its insurers in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama.4 Seven of the suits were removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama and consolidated for trial.5 The case proceeded to a jury on the issue of whether lightning caused the collapse.6
At trial, the defendants introduced a copy of the Morning Times of Selma from June 9, 1901, which contained an article describing a fire in the unfinished dome of the courthouse under construction on June 9, 1901.7 The editor of the Selma Times-Journal testified that the publishing company maintained archives containing this issue.8 Dallas County objected to the article as hearsay not falling under any recognized exception.9
The district court admitted the newspaper into evidence as part of the records of the Selma Times-Journal.10 The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.11 Dallas County appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, specifying as error the admission of the newspaper.12
Whether a 1901 newspaper article describing a fire at the Dallas County Courthouse was admissible in evidence to show the presence of charred timbers in the structure?13
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) permits federal courts to admit relevant and material hearsay evidence that is necessary and carries a circumstantial guaranty of trustworthiness.14 This rule applies even when the evidence does not fit a traditional exception such as a business record or ancient document.15
Yes. The 1901 newspaper was necessary because the fire occurred fifty-eight years before trial.16 It was improbable that any eyewitness could supply accurate testimony, making the contemporary account more reliable than faded recollection.17
The article carried a guaranty of trustworthiness because it appeared in a small-town newspaper on the day of the fire.18 The reporter had no motive to falsify, and any error would have been readily detected by the community.19 The district court therefore acted within its discretion under Rule 43(a) by admitting the evidence to explain the charred timbers without requiring it to qualify under any named hearsay exception.20
The 1901 newspaper article was admissible.21