Order on Motion to Admit Post-Trial Evidence
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1982

2 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Order on Motion to Admit Post-Trial Evidence, 1982. b809dc73-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/180d6671-09cb-4a04-a29a-a5042ba03c02/order-on-motion-to-admit-post-trial-evidence. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION WILEY L. BOLDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, y. CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-297-P CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et al. N o ’ Ne ’ N N N N N N S S Defendants ORDER ON MOTION TO ADMIT POST-TRIAL EVIDENCE This cause came to be heard on defendants' motions to admit post-trial documents and other evidence, which were submitted without oral argument on November 4, 1981. The evidence sought to be admitted is several articles from a local newspaper and a video-cassette recording of a local television newscast. These items are offered as rebuttal to certain expert witnesses' trial testimony that black citizens of Mobile are currently unable to effectively participate in the political process, The substance of this evidence is hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. Hearsay statements do not become competent by reason of the fact that they are printed. This general rule has been applied specifically to newspapers and newspaper articles. Robert Stiswood Group Lid. v, O'Reilly, 344 F.Supp. 376 (D. Comm. 1972); Persons v, Summers, 151 So. 24 210 (Ala. 1963). The usual hearsay problems are compounded when the evidence is submitted post-trial. See United States y. Crocker-Anclo National Bank, 277 F.Supp. 133, 133 n. 36 (%.D. Calif. 1967). .The authenticity of the articles is not an issue, Fed. R. Evid. 902(6), the inherent untrustworthiness and lack el : Ri ey of cross-examination are the crux of the matter. The video-tape suffers from these same deficiencies, .Yallot vv. Central Gulf Lines, Ing. 641 F.24 347. 351 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), and no exception to the hearsay rule is applicable. Vanston v. Commecticut Cen. Life Ins, Co >? 482 F.2d 337, 344-45 (5th Cir. 1973). The film is therefore inadmissible. See Wilson v. Piper Aireraf: Corp., 577 2.24 1322, 1329-30 (Ore. 1978) (documentary film). It is therefore ORDERED that defendants’ motions to admit post-trial evidence are due to be, and are hereby Done, at Mobile, Alzbzma, this the LL day of 1082. DENIED. He ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE