Jordan v. Binns

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013 · Evidence

712 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2013)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayParty admissionsPublic recordsBusiness recordsHarmless errorFRE 801(d)(2)(A)FRE 803(8)

Facts

After a motorcycle-truck collision, Betty Jordan allegedly told Kelly Binns at the scene, "Tell the trucker it's not his fault. It's my fault." Binns relayed that statement to Trooper Litt, U.S. Xpress claims manager Bukovitz, and insurance adjuster Niles, and Litt recorded statements from both Binns and Betty's husband Ted in the police crash report. Ted allegedly also told others that Betty had said the accident was her fault, although Ted denied making those statements. At trial, the court admitted Trooper Litt's testimony, portions of the crash report, Niles's testimony, and the adjuster's report, and the jury found for the defendants.

Issue

Whether the district court improperly admitted several pieces of evidence containing multiple layers of hearsay about Betty Jordan's alleged admission of fault, including testimony, a police crash report, and an insurance adjuster's report; and if some evidence was admitted in error, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial. The case also presented whether Ted Jordan's repetition of Betty's statement qualified as a party-opponent admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).

Rule

Under Rule 805, each layer of a multilevel statement must be independently admissible. A statement is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) if it was made by a party and is offered against that party; this includes a party's statement reporting what another person said, so long as the reported statement is itself admissible. Third-party statements in a police report do not become admissible for their truth merely because they are included in a public record under Rule 803(8), and records prepared in anticipation of litigation are not admissible as business records under Rule 803(6).

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence suit arising from a boating collision near Duluth, Minnesota, Maya Ortiz and her husband Leo Ortiz both sue the other boat operator. A marina employee testifies that Leo said at the dock, "Maya told me she cut too close and caused this."

If the defendant offers the marina employee's testimony against Leo, is Leo's statement admissible over a hearsay objection?

Explanation. A party's statement reporting what another person said can still qualify as that party's own admission when offered against that party. The key is that each hearsay layer must independently be admissible. Leo asserted that Maya said she caused the collision; that is Leo's own statement for Rule 801(d)(2)(A) purposes, and Maya's inner statement can independently qualify as a party admission if offered against her. The majority opinion emphasized that party admissions do not require personal knowledge or that the statement be against interest.