Also known as: public record · public-record · official records · government records
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A record or statement of a public office that sets 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 applies in civil cases and against the government in criminal cases, subject to a trustworthiness determination by the opponent.
A record or statement of a public office that sets 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 applies in civil cases and against the government in criminal cases, subject to a trustworthiness determination by the opponent.
Priscilla Parks offers an NTSB accident report containing the agency's factual findings and conclusions about the cause of a plane crash. The court admits the report in her civil wrongful-death action against the manufacturer because the findings resulted from an investigation authorized by law and the opponent has not shown untrustworthiness.
Documents filed in a designated public office, such as a county recorder, that provide constructive notice of interests affecting title to real property. Recording a satisfaction piece or assignment in the public records clears or transfers encumbrances and protects subsequent parties who rely on the state of title.
Pedro Pacheco pays off his home loan in full to Pacific Bank. The bank executes a satisfaction piece but delays filing it with the county recorder. When Pedro later tries to sell the property, a title search still shows the mortgage as open, forcing him to obtain a court order compelling the bank to record the release so the public records reflect clear title.
Documents filed in a designated public office, such as a county recorder, that provide constructive notice of interests affecting title to real property. Recording a satisfaction piece or assignment in the public records clears or transfers encumbrances and protects subsequent parties who rely on the state of title.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A newspaper seeks to publish the name of a crime victim that appeared in open-court filings. Because the information is already part of the public record, the state cannot constitutionally punish the accurate publication of that information under the First Amendment.
On the evening of October 18, 1975, local police found the six members of the Henry Kellie family murdered in their home in Sutherland, Nebraska, a town of about 850 people. Police released the description of a suspect, Erwin Charles Simants, to the reporters who had hastened to the scene of the crime. Simants was arrested and arraigned in Lincoln County Court the following morning. Three days after the crime, the County Attorney and Simants' attorney joined in asking the County Court to enter a restrictive order relating to matters that may or may not be publicly reported. This request responded to the mass coverage by news media and the reasonable likelihood of prejudicial news that would make difficult the impaneling of an impartial jury. The County Court heard oral argument but took no evidence. On October 22 the County Court granted the motion and entered an order. The order prohibited everyone in attendance from releasing for public dissemination any testimony given or evidence adduced. It also required members of the press to observe the Nebraska Bar-Press Guidelines. Simants' preliminary hearing was held the same day, open to the public but subject to the order. The County Court bound the defendant over for trial to the State District Court on charges that included commission of the murders in the course of a sexual assault. Petitioners, several press and broadcast associations, publishers, and individual reporters, moved on October 23 for leave to intervene in the District Court. They asked that the restrictive order be vacated. The District Court conducted a hearing at which the County Judge testified and newspaper articles about the case were admitted in evidence. On October 27 the District Court granted the motion to intervene and entered its own restrictive order. The order applied only until the jury was impaneled. It specifically prohibited reporting of the existence or contents of a confession Simants had made to law enforcement officers, statements Simants had made to other persons, the contents of a note he had written the night of the crime, aspects of the medical testimony at the preliminary hearing concerning the sexual assault, and the identity of the victims of the alleged sexual assault. Four days later petitioners asked the District Court to stay its order. They applied to the Nebraska Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, a stay, and an expedited appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 25 and on December 1 issued a per curiam opinion that modified the District Court's order. The modified order prohibited reporting of only three matters: the existence and nature of any confessions or admissions made by the defendant to law enforcement officers, any confessions or admissions made to any third parties except members of the press, and other facts strongly implicative of the accused. The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Judge for reconsideration of whether pretrial hearings should be closed to the press and public. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. The parties informed the Court that Simants had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, with his appeal pending in the Nebraska Supreme Court. The restrictive order expired by its own terms when the jury was impaneled on January 7, 1976. There were no restraints on publication once the jury was selected.
View caseThe prosecution offers certificates from state laboratory analysts stating that substances seized from the defendant were cocaine. The defendant objects on confrontation grounds. The certificates are not admissible as public records because they were created for the purpose of proving a fact at trial rather than for routine administrative use.
In 2001 Boston police officers received a tip that a Kmart employee was engaging in suspicious activity involving repeated short trips in a blue sedan. Officers set up surveillance in the parking lot, observed the described sequence of events, detained the employee upon his return, and discovered four clear plastic bags containing a substance resembling cocaine. The officers then arrested the two men in the car, one of whom was petitioner Luis Melendez-Diaz. The officers placed all three suspects in a police cruiser. During the short drive to the police station the officers observed their passengers fidgeting and making furtive movements in the back of the car. After depositing the men at the station they searched the police cruiser and found a plastic bag containing nineteen smaller bags hidden in the partition between the front and back seats. The officers submitted the seized substances to the State Laboratory Institute of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which was required by law to conduct chemical analysis upon police request. Analysts at the laboratory performed the tests on November 28, 2001, and prepared three certificates of analysis that reported the weight of the bags and stated that the substance was found to contain cocaine. Each certificate was sworn before a notary public by the analysts, as required under Massachusetts law, and reprinted the statutory provision making the certificates prima facie evidence of the composition, quality, and net weight of the narcotic analyzed. Melendez-Diaz was charged with distributing cocaine and trafficking in cocaine in an amount between 14 and 28 grams. At trial the prosecution introduced the bags seized from the codefendant and from the cruiser along with the three certificates. Petitioner objected to admission of the certificates, asserting that Crawford v. Washington required the analysts to testify in person. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates pursuant to the state statute. The jury found Melendez-Diaz guilty. He appealed, contending that admission of the certificates violated his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the convictions, relying on a prior decision of the Supreme Judicial Court that had held forensic analysts are not subject to confrontation. The Supreme Judicial Court denied review, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View case2 common questions
The exception reaches factual findings that include opinions and conclusions when they result from an investigation made pursuant to legal authority. The opponent may still challenge trustworthiness, but the presence of evaluative content does not automatically disqualify the record.
Yes. The professional conduct rules expressly permit a lawyer to state information contained in a public record without violating the trial publicity restriction, even if the same information would otherwise be subject to the general prohibition.
Priya Prasad represents a defendant in a high-profile fraud case. She tells reporters only that the indictment and the names of the parties appear in the publicly filed complaint. Because the information is already contained in a public record, the statement falls within the permitted disclosure under the professional conduct rules.
Pearl Porter pays off a senior mortgage on property owned by Patrick Phan after the junior lienholder refuses to do so. By operation of subrogation she steps into the senior mortgagee's shoes. She records the assignment of the mortgage in the county land records so that subsequent purchasers and lienholders have notice of her priority position.
2 common questions
Recording the satisfaction is necessary to remove the mortgage from the public records so that subsequent purchasers and lenders see clear title. Until the satisfaction is recorded, the mortgage continues to appear as an encumbrance even after the debt has been paid.
Recording statutes generally protect a subsequent purchaser for value who lacks actual or constructive notice from an unrecorded prior claim. The prior interest remains valid between the original parties but is subordinate to the later bona-fide purchaser who relied on the state of the public records.
…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…