Larez v. City of Los Angeles

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Evidence

Evidencehearsayresidual exceptionRule 803(24)newspaper articlesparty admissiondouble hearsay concernsbest evidence within residual hearsay

Facts

LAPD officers executed a warrant at the Larez home using a "crisis entry" and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, physically abused family members and left the home badly damaged. In the second phase of trial against Chief Gates and the City, plaintiffs alleged unconstitutional policies or customs, including excessive force, destruction of property, and deficient complaint procedures. After Gates testified, newspapers quoted him making several statements about the verdict against the officers, including that Jessie Larez was lucky he had only suffered a broken nose. Over objection, the district court admitted the newspaper quotations and testimony about their emotional effect.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in admitting newspaper quotations attributing statements to Chief Gates without requiring testimony from the reporters, and if so whether that error warranted a new trial as to Gates and the City. The court also addressed whether the denial of a new trial should be affirmed as to the individual officers.

Rule

A party's own out-of-court statements may be admissible as nonhearsay, but newspaper accounts repeating those statements are separate out-of-court assertions offered for their truth and therefore raise a hearsay problem. Under Rule 803(24), such statements are admissible only if they bear equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and are more probative on the point than other evidence the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; when the reporters are available to testify, the newspaper quotations are not the best available evidence and should not be admitted in lieu of reporter testimony.

🔒

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 civil rights trial in Phoenix, plaintiff Nora Vega seeks to prove that Police Commissioner Alan Mercer endorsed officers' use of force. She offers two newspaper articles quoting Mercer after a prior hearing, and both reporters are present in the courthouse under subpoena, but the judge admits only the articles without calling the reporters.

Are the articles admissible under the residual hearsay exception?

Explanation. The governing rule requires separating the official's underlying statement from the reporter's out-of-court assertion that the official said it. The underlying statement may qualify as nonhearsay, but the newspaper's attribution is still hearsay. Under the residual exception, trustworthiness is not enough; the statement must also be more probative than other evidence obtainable through reasonable efforts. When the reporters are available to testify, the articles are not the best available evidence. (Derived from Larez v. City of Los Angeles (n.d.).)