Also known as: government record · governmental records · governmental record · public records · official records
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A record or statement of a public office setting out the office's activities, a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, or factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. The exception to the hearsay rule for such records requires that the opponent not show the source of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Glenn Gross paid off his home loan in full to Guardian Insurance. The lender executed a satisfaction document and recorded it in the county recorder's office. Glenn offered the county's official recorded entry as a government record to prove discharge in later litigation. The court examined whether the opponent could show lack of trustworthiness.
Gabriella Gomez sued a drug manufacturer after suffering cardiac events. She offered an FAA report compiling adverse event data collected under federal surveillance rules. The court considered whether the agency's factual findings from its authorized investigation met the requirements for admission despite the report's preliminary disclaimers.
Gulfstream Aviation paid off a senior mortgage on property owned by Glacier Energy after the original lender refused to release the lien. Gulfstream offered the county recorder's official filing of the assignment as a government record to prove priority. The court assessed whether the opponent could demonstrate that the source or circumstances indicated untrustworthiness.
Gavin Grant, a partner in a dissolved law firm, received a subpoena for the firm's financial ledgers. He offered the government-maintained partnership filing as a public record to establish firm activities. The court evaluated admissibility under the exception after the opponent failed to show lack of trustworthiness in the source.
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 caseGrace Gupta refused to produce her child under a court order arising from a neglect proceeding. The state agency offered its own placement-history records as government records to prove the custodial relationship. The court considered whether the opponent could show circumstances indicating lack of trustworthiness.
Maurice M. was hospitalized at three months old with a fractured left femur and other indications of severe physical abuse. Hospital personnel observed respondent Bouknight shaking Maurice and handling him improperly. This led them to notify the Baltimore City Department of Social Services of suspected child abuse. In February 1987, the Department secured a court order removing Maurice from Bouknight's control and placing him in shelter care. Several months later, the shelter care order was modified to return Maurice to Bouknight temporarily. Following a hearing, the juvenile court declared Maurice a child in need of assistance and placed him under the Department's continuing oversight pursuant to a protective supervision order. The order required Bouknight to cooperate with the Department, continue in therapy, participate in parental aid and training programs, and refrain from physically punishing Maurice. Eight months later, the Department returned to juvenile court fearing for Maurice's safety. BCDSS caseworkers related that Bouknight would not cooperate with them and had in nearly every respect violated the terms of the protective order. On April 20, 1988, the court granted BCDSS' petition to remove Maurice from Bouknight's control for placement in foster care. BCDSS officials also petitioned for judicial relief from Bouknight's failure to produce Maurice or reveal where he could be found. The court issued an order to show cause why Bouknight should not be held in civil contempt for failure to produce the child. Maurice was not produced at subsequent hearings. At a hearing one week later, Bouknight claimed that Maurice was with a relative in Dallas. Investigation revealed that the relative had not seen Maurice. The next day, following another hearing at which Bouknight again declined to produce Maurice, the juvenile court found Bouknight in contempt for failure to produce the child as ordered. The court directed that Bouknight be imprisoned until she purged herself of contempt by either producing Maurice before the court or revealing to the court his exact whereabouts. Bouknight's claim that the contempt order violated the Fifth Amendment was rejected by the juvenile court. The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the judgment upholding the contempt order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseGuillermo Guzman, custodian of a corporation's files, was ordered to produce records in response to a grand jury subpoena. He offered the government corporate filing as a public record of authorized activities. The court examined admissibility once the opponent did not demonstrate untrustworthiness from the source or method of preparation.
In 1965, Randy Braswell began operating a business involving the sale and purchase of equipment, land, timber, and oil and gas interests as a sole proprietorship. He continued this until 1980, when he incorporated Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc. as a Mississippi corporation and transferred the business to it. The following year, Braswell formed Worldwide Purchasing, Inc., also a Mississippi corporation, and funded it with his 100 percent interest in Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc. Braswell remained the sole shareholder of both corporations at all relevant times. Both corporations maintained active status with the State of Mississippi, filed corporate tax returns, and kept current corporate books and records. Pursuant to Mississippi law, each corporation had three directors consisting of Braswell, his wife, and his mother. Braswell's wife served as secretary-treasurer and his mother as vice-president, but neither exercised any authority over the business affairs of the corporations. In August 1986, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena addressed to Randy Braswell as president of both corporations. The subpoena directed him to produce specified corporate books and records, including receipts and disbursement journals, general ledgers, accounts receivable and payable ledgers, bank records, contracts, minutes, stock books, loan documents, and retained copies of tax forms such as Forms 1120, W-2, and 1099. The subpoena permitted Braswell to deliver the records to the serving agent without requiring him to provide any testimony. Braswell moved to quash the subpoena on the basis that producing the records would incriminate him. The district court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that denial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe proponent must establish that the record sets out the office's activities, a matter observed under legal duty, or factual findings from an authorized investigation. The opponent then bears the burden of showing lack of trustworthiness from the source or circumstances of preparation.
Supporting sources
Not automatically. Explicit disclaimers or preliminary language do not necessarily defeat trustworthiness when the underlying data collection followed regular authorized procedures. The opponent must still demonstrate that the source or method indicates unreliability.
Supporting sources
Such editing can demonstrate lack of trustworthiness when it alters conclusions or omits facts after the agency becomes aware of potential litigation. Selective revisions made days after the event undermine the presumption of reliability that supports the exception.
Supporting sources
…its credit, the Court's analysis of "testimony" excludes at least some hearsay exceptions, such as business records and official records. See ante , at 56. To hold otherwise would require numerous additional witnesses without any apparent gain in the truth-seeking process. Likewise to the Court's credit is its implicit…