Opinion ID: 42576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Michael Grimes' Investigation Report

Text: 8 Garza also argues that it was error for the district court to exclude the report containing Grimes' opinion as a party admission. Again, questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 13 According to Garza, the investigation report qualifies as an admissible party admission under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) and 801(d)(2)(D) because, when he prepared the report, Grimes was employed by the Department of Justice, the entity prosecuting Garza. In pertinent part, Rule 801(d)(2) provides that an admission by a party-opponent is not hearsay if: 9 The statement is offered against a party and is . . . (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or . . . (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship. 10 Garza's argument that the investigation report is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) fails because the prosecution has never manifested an adoption of belief in the truth of Grimes' report. 11 Though it is not as well-settled in this Circuit's precedent, Garza should also fail in his argument that the investigation report is admissible under 801(d)(2)(D). Garza argues that Grimes prepared his report during the course and scope of his employment while acting as a government agent. Therefore, according to Garza, Grimes' report on Ragsdale is a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). However, other circuits have declined to extend Rule 801(d)(2)(D) to statements made by government agents, especially in criminal trials. 14 12 In United States v. Van Griffin, the Ninth Circuit explained, We do not say that every publication of every branch of government of the United States can be treated as a party admission by the United States under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). 15 In United States v. Prevatte, the Seventh Circuit noted that courts faced with this issue have refused to apply this provision to government employees testifying in criminal trials based on the rationale that no individual can bind the sovereign. 16 In this case, Grimes' investigation related to a different criminal case. The results of his investigation were never adopted by the Department of Justice, and no prosecution was recommended. It hardly seems within the spirit of Rule 801(d)(2)(D) to admit Grimes' opinion regarding Officer Ragsdale's veracity as an admission by the Government. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Grimes' report could not be attributed to the Government.