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 December 04, 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