Opinion ID: 765907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Admissions by a Party- Opponent

Text: 23 Federal Rule of Evidence 801 provides that admissions by a party-opponent do not constitute hearsay: A statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity . . . . Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Relying on United States v. Fleming, 594 F.2d 598 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 (1979), Mr. McGee contends that his statement to Detective Buschmann is not admissible under Rule 801 (d)(2) as an admission by a party-opponent because it was not inculpatory. 24 We cannot accept this submission. Neither the Fleming case, nor any other Seventh Circuit case of which we are aware, establishes a requirement that admissions by a party-opponent be inculpatory in order to be admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801. 7 Nor does the case law from the other circuits indicate that an admission must be inculpatory; the courts that have addressed the issue have held that, in accordance with the language of Rule 801 (d)(2), the statement need only be made by the party against whom it is offered. See United States v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1357, 1363 (6th Cir.) (On its face, Rule 801(d)(2) does not limit an admission to a statement against interest. Furthermore, this court has refused to place such a limited construction on the scope of an admission.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 904 (1993); Marquis Theatre Corp. v. Condado Mini Cinema, 846 F.2d 86, 90 n.3 (1st Cir. 1988) (interpreting Rule 801(d)(2) on its face and rejecting the contention that admissions under Rule 801(d)(2) must be against interest either at the time the statement is made or at the time of trial); Guam v. Ojeda, 758 F.2d 403, 408 (9th Cir. 1985) (Cases interpreting section 801(d)(2)(A) are in agreement that statements need not be incriminating to be admissions. (citing California state court cases)); cf. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172 n.8 (1974) (interpreting the soon-to-be-enacted Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) to require nothing more than a statement by a party offered against him at trial: Rule 801(d)(2)(A) of the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, approved by the Court on November 20, 1972, and transmitted to Congress, expressly provides that a party's own statements offered against him at trial are not hearsay.); United States v. White, 868 F.2d 305, 306 (8th Cir. 1989) (requiring only that a statement be offered against a party and be the party's own statement in either an individual or representative capacity--the two explicit requirements in the language of Rule 801(d)(2)(A)--in order to be admissible as an admission by a party-opponent). 8 25 Two well-known treatises on evidence also agree that admissions by party-opponents under Rule 801(d)(2) need not be inculpatory. See Kenneth S. Broun et al., McCormick on Evidence sec. 254, at 143 (John William Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992) (A type of evidence with which admissions may be confused is evidence of declarations against interest. The latter, treated under a separate exception to the hearsay rule, must have been against the declarant's interest when made. No such requirement applies to admissions. . . . Of course, most admissions are actually against interest when made, but there is no such requirement. (footnote omitted)); Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence sec. 801.20[1]-[2], at 801-42 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., 2d ed. 1999) (Admissions by a party-opponent are usually contrary to a position that the declarant is taking at the trial in which it is introduced. . . . The party's statement need not have been against interest when made . . . .). 9 26 We agree with the other circuits that Rule 801(d)(2)(A) should be interpreted on its face to require only a party's own statement offered against the party. We therefore reject Mr. McGee's contention that the district court erred in admitting his statement to Detective Buschmann. The district court's decision to admit the statement as an admission by a party-opponent is affirmed.