U.S. Court of Appeals Orders District Judge to Hear Memphis State U. Case

Press Release
January 30, 1959

U.S. Court of Appeals Orders District Judge to Hear Memphis State U. Case preview

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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top