Opinion ID: 414451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of Hoxie's Testimony

Text: 101 AT & T contrasts the trial court's exclusion or limited admission of all of the above evidence with the admission of testimony by Lowell Hoxie, a former Litton vice president in charge of the terminal equipment division's marketing and administration group. Hoxie testified that problems associated with defective PCAs, short supply, and missed delivery dates imposed incredible cost[s] on Litton, the effects of which were devastating to Litton's efforts to establish itself in the terminal equipment market. The trial court rejected the argument that this testimony was inadmissible as hearsay because, although Hoxie testified in part from recollection of oral reports made by subordinates, much of his testimony was based on first hand knowledge and observation or reports made in the ordinary course of business. The testimony was therefore admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24), which provides for the admission of hearsay statements not specifically enumerated in Rule 803. The trial court found that the testimony had sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, Fed.R.Evid. 803(24), to justify its admission because the reports, even if oral, were made in the ordinary course of business. The court also explained that it was doing so to avoid the expensive and very inefficient alternative of call[ing] enough witnesses to furnish non-hearsay substantiation of [the] summary offered by Hoxie. Thus, although the trustworthiness of recollections of the sort Hoxie's testimony contained is open to question, see Bowman v. Kaufman, 387 F.2d 582, 586-87 (2d Cir.1967), the potential hearsay taint of Hoxie's testimony is not sufficient to justify reversal. 102