Rule 902

[leatherlips]

Here is some interesting info I got today, haven't been able to conferm, but sounds good.

On April 12, Leaar and his wife Rose appeared in court for Bill's probation violation hearing.

Instead of publicly confronting the merits of the alleged probation violation and asking the court to send a "recalcitrant tax convict" back to proson, attorneys for the DOJ and IRS withdrew their complaint alleging the probation violation.

WHY?

Because under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court cannot deny the admissibility of relevant evidence consisting of certified copies of public legal records as they are presumed to be self-authenticating and valid as evidence.

Here is the text of Rule 902, sub-paragraph (4):

"Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent fo admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

(4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the costodian or other person authorized to make the certification."

In other words, in facing a public criminal hearing where the contents of Lear's "Challenge of Authority" was, without argument, directly relevant to Lear's alleged violation, and knowing the District Court could not deny its admittance as evidence, the DOJ was faced with two unpleasant alternatives: either produce IRS witnesses to explain away government documentastion clearly showing IRS Form 1040 is not a legally authorized form, or walk away from the probation violation hearing.

IRS walked.

[chapka]

Actually, I don't think 902 is as powerful as you may think, and I don't see how it would be relevant in the case you're describing.

The fact that a document is a public record under Fed. R. Evid. 902(4) doesn't affect the admissibility or probative value of evidence in any meaningful way. The only thing it affects is the requirement that documentary evidence be authenticated before admission. "Authenticated" just means that there's some evidence that it is what the entering party says it is. In other words, when you watch a courtroom drama and the lawyer says, "Mrs. So-and-so, did you make a list of things to do that Tuesday morning?" "Yes." "Is this that list?" "Yes, it is." That document has now been authenticated. If this is a document Mr. Lear produced himself, that's all that would have been required to authenticate it, and I don't see how it could have been blocked as not authenticated if it was otherwise relevant and probative.

In other words, what 902(4) says is not that evidence that's filed with a government agency has to be admitted by a court, only that the lawyer presenting it doesn't have to prove that it is what it says it is based on the testimony of a witness in court, as long as he or she has a certificate signed by the custodian of the records. It's a matter of convenience more than one of substantive law, and not something that would usually make the difference as to whether a piece of evidence is admitted or not.

I don't know the whole story of the case you're referring to, but based on the summary you gave it seems unlikely that Fed. R. Evid. 902(4) would have made any difference.

[leatherlips]

I fail to see how testomony in a court is a certified copy of some thing. While what you say may go into the public record from the court, I don't see how that meets the requirement of a certified copy of something filed in an office.

If I file something into the county recorders office, say all the paperwork for an allodial title, and I'm going to court about something on my land, I would then go to the county recorders office and get a certified copy of what was filed there and that would then be something the court couldn't ignore. At least that's the way i read it.

[chapka]

Originally Posted by leatherlips

I fail to see how testomony in a court is a certified copy of some thing. While what you say may go into the public record from the court, I don't see how that meets the requirement of a certified copy of something filed in an office.

This is not a rule about testimony; it's a rule about documentary evidence.

I'm not saying that testimony in court can "certify" a document, I'm saying that it can authenticate a document. Every document used in court needs to be authenticated. Usually this is done by testimony. The only affect of this rule is to say that you can do it by certification of a government authority instead.

If I file something into the county recorders office, say all the paperwork for an allodial title, and I'm going to court about something on my land, I would then go to the county recorders office and get a certified copy of what was filed there and that would then be something the court couldn't ignore. At least that's the way i read it.

The court can still ignore it if it's not relevant. Read the rule:

"Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent fo admissibility is not required with respect to the following"

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity is normally required to enter a document into evidence, but it's not the only thing that's required. It must also meet the general requirements for any evidence: relevant, probative, not prejudicial, etc. Satisfying one of the conditions prececdent doesn't mean it's admissible; a "condition precedent" is a requirement without which it can't be admitted; if there is more than one of these, then all of them must be satisfied.

[seeker]

Would a certified copy of a CRA qualify?

Seeker