Party admission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence
Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Testimony · Documentary evidence
Physical evidence · Digital evidence
Exculpatory evidence · Scientific evidence
Demonstrative evidence
Hearsay: in U.K. law · in U.S. law
Relevance
Burden of proof
Laying a foundation
Subsequent remedial measure
Character evidence · Habit evidence
Similar fact evidence
Authentication
Chain of custody
Judicial notice · Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Witnesses
Competence · Privilege
Direct examination · Cross-examination
Impeachment · Recorded recollection
Expert witness · Dead man statute
Hearsay (and its exceptions)
Excited utterance · Dying declaration
Party admission · Ancient document
Declarations against interest
Present sense impression · Res gestae
Learned treatise  · Implied assertion
Other areas of the common law
Contract law · Tort law · Property law
Wills and Trusts · Criminal law

A party admission, in the law of evidence, is any statement made by a declarant who is a party to a lawsuit, which is offered as evidence against that party. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, such a statement is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself, meaning that it constitutes an exemption or exclusion to the prohibition on hearsay - indeed, this is probably the most important category of exemptions to the inadmissibility of out-of-court statements. When the term "exemption" is used, though, it does not mean that the statement is an "exception" to the hearsay rule. Rather, a party admission is classified as "nonhearsay" by the Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

The statement is admissible even if the declarant had no basis for knowing the truth of the statement. For example, if an employee rushes to tell the director of a trucking company that one of his trucks has been in an accident, and the director says, "oh, we're behaving so negligently, lately," that statement will be admissible - even though the manager had no reason to know that this particular accident was the result of negligence.

The exemption permits one party to offer the out-of-court statement of any opponent party. It may not be used by a party to offer that party's own out of court statement. However, under the common law doctrine of completeness, a party may possibly be able to admit some statements of their own, if a party admission exemption allows the opponent to admit part of a statement, and the first party wishes to admit the rest of that statement.

The party admission exemption does not formally, or informally, require that the admission be a representation against the party's interest - a "statement against interest." Those kinds of statements are covered by an exception to the hearsay rule, under Rule 804, and can be used by any party to admit the out-of-court statement of a legally unavailable witness. The basis for the exemption has nothing to do with judgments about the likelihood of a party making a false statement against his or her own interest. The basis is that if a party to a suit has made a statement, the opponent is entitled to admit the statement. It is different from other hearsay in that the party opponent is present and has an opportunity to contest or explain any such statements. The party admission rule furthers the truth-finding mission of the trial process.

The reach of Rule 801(d)(2) extends beyond simple statements of a party's own making, which is exempted under 801(d)(2)(A). It also applies to statements made by others, if the party manifests belief and approval. FRE(801(d)(2)(B). Further, it applies to vicarious admissions - those made by a declarant authorized by the party to make the statement, or by a servant or agent, if it concerns a matter within the scope of the servant. FRE 801(d)(2)(C) and (D). Finally, it allows admission of any statement made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspirator, provided there is independent evidence of the conspiracy's existence. FRE 801(d)(2)(E).

With regard to adoptive admissions, even a party's silence can be a basis for admitting evidence under this exception. In some jurisdictions, the court is required to let the jury consider whether the silence was an adoptive admission. See U.S. v. Sears, 663 F. 2d 896 (9th Cir. 1981)

Some states do not have the exemption/exception distinction, but even in these states, party admissions are generally admissible. See e.g. Cal. Evidence Code s. 1220.