Opinion ID: 780379
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Force Committee Report

Text: 20 After the DR-4 disturbance, the ODRC appointed a use of force committee to investigate the incident. Four months later, after conducting 123 interviews and reviewing numerous documents, the committee issued the Use of Force Committee Report, which detailed the committee's factual findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the use of force on September 5, 1997. Plaintiffs attached a copy of the Use of Force Committee Report to their memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 21 By marginal entry, the district court granted defendants' motion to strike the Use of Force Committee Report. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the district court abused its discretion in striking, without explanation, the report, asserting that the report satisfies the definition of relevant evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 401 and is admissible under the public records and reports hearsay exception, Fed.R.Evid. 803(8). We review the district court's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. Snyder v. Ag Trucking, Inc., 57 F.3d 484, 492 (6th Cir.1995). A finding of abuse of discretion will be made only where the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. 22 Fed.R.Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The report sets forth the use of force committee's findings and recommendations following the committee's investigation of the use of force during the DR-4 disturbance and is therefore relevant to plaintiffs' claims of excessive force. 23 Under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8), the following are not excluded by the hearsay rule: [r]ecords, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth ... in civil actions and proceedings ..., factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-9-02(D) sets forth the procedures to be used in correctional institutions to investigate use of force incidents. A use of force committee is appointed whenever use of force by one or more employees results in death of or serious physical harm to an inmate, or in any case where the director deems necessary. Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-9-02(D)(1). The committee shall interview all available staff members and inmates directly involved in the incident, plus as many witnesses as are necessary or expedient. Id. § 5120-9-02(D)(2). Then, 24 [a]fter all testimonies have been taken, the three-person investigating committee shall determine what actually happened and shall make a conclusion as to whether or not the staff member was justified in using force and whether or not excessive force was applied under the circumstances.... A brief statement of the facts as found by the committee, and its conclusion as to the necessity for using force, its conclusion as to whether or not excessive force was employed, along with the reasons supporting these conclusions, shall be written on the bottom half of the force report.... 25 Id. § 5120-9-02(D)(5). Therefore, the Use of Force Committee Report contains the findings resulting from the committee's investigation made pursuant to Ohio law and falls within Fed.R.Evid. 803(8). 26 Defendants argue that plaintiffs failed to prove foundational facts showing that the public records and reports exception applies to the Use of Force Committee Report. In her deposition, however, Nancy Tewell testified that she was the chairperson of the use of force committee appointed by the ODRC to investigate the DR-4 disturbance and identified the document as the committee's report, thereby providing a sufficient foundation for the application of the public records and reports exception. 27 Defendants further argue that the report was properly excluded because the committee members lacked personal knowledge of DR-4 disturbance. Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 602, [a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Under defendants' argument, an investigative report would never be admissible as such reports typically are not prepared by persons directly involved in the matter under investigation. Investigative reports embody the results of investigation and accordingly are often not the product of the declarant's firsthand knowledge. 2 McCormick on Evidence § 296 (5th ed.1999). Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-9-02(D)(1) specifically provides that in no case may an officer involved in the incident, or his direct supervisor, be on the committee. Although the committee lacked personal knowledge of the DR-4 disturbance, the committee based its report on 123 interviews and numerous documents, including all staff and inmate incident reports, as well as the investigative report completed by the Ohio Highway State Patrol. 28 Accordingly, we find that, as the record now stands, the Use of Force Committee Report is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8). Upon remand, if the district court finds that the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness, then it may still exclude the report.