Lloyd v. American Export

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Evidence

EvidenceFRE 803(8)(C)FRE 804(a)(5)FRE 804(b)(1)FRE 803(22)public recordsformer testimonyunavailability

Facts

This case arose from a violent altercation aboard the SS EXPORT COMMERCE in Yokohama between crew members Roland Alvarez and Frank Lloyd. At trial on Alvarez's counterclaim against Export, Alvarez presented the only account of the fight and argued that Export negligently failed to protect him after learning of Lloyd's dangerous propensities and prior hostility. Export sought to admit a Coast Guard hearing examiner's Decision and Order and excerpts of Lloyd's sworn testimony from a Coast Guard proceeding concerning the same incident, as well as a Japanese judgment convicting Alvarez of inflicting injury on Lloyd. The district court excluded that evidence, and the jury returned a $95,000 negligence verdict for Alvarez while rejecting unseaworthiness.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in excluding: (1) the Coast Guard hearing examiner's Decision and Order as a public record under Rule 803(8)(C); (2) Lloyd's Coast Guard testimony as former testimony of an unavailable witness under Rule 804(b)(1); and (3) Alvarez's Japanese criminal conviction under Rule 803(22).

Rule

A public agency report containing factual findings from an investigation made pursuant to legal authority is admissible in a civil case under Rule 803(8)(C) unless untrustworthy. Former testimony of an unavailable witness is admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) when the party against whom it is offered, or in a civil case a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony; "predecessor in interest" should be interpreted practically rather than formalistically, focusing on like motive and adequate opportunity to examine on the same material facts. A foreign criminal conviction may be admitted under Rule 803(22) when it is a final judgment after trial for a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year and the foreign proceeding accords with civilized jurisprudence and is stated in a clear and formal record.

🔒

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 negligence suit in federal court in Philadelphia arising from a warehouse explosion in Camden, Harbor Steel Logistics offers a written decision by a state fire marshal hearing officer. The decision followed a statutorily authorized investigation, summarized witness testimony and physical evidence, and concluded that the blast began when an employee bypassed a safety valve. The plaintiff objects that the report is inadmissible hearsay because it contains the officer's evaluative conclusions.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority treated an agency decision and order as admissible under Rule 803(8)(C) where it set forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to legal authority in a civil case. It rejected the argument that the report became inadmissible merely because the examiner summarized evidence and pointed out inconsistencies. Unless sources or circumstances indicate untrustworthiness, the report should be admitted. (Derived from Lloyd v. American Export (n.d.).)