Court Opinion

ID: 9638125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:34:07.714539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:04.007205
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I. I am much disturbed by the restriction here read into the remedial statute, *99928 U.S.C.A. § 695, in supporting the exclusion of the stenographic report of the engineer’s examination by officials of the railroad and of the Massachusetts Public Utilities Commission.1 This seems to me directly opposed to the intent of the statute, as shown by its plain terms as well as its history and background; and I suggest that the majority opinion demonstrates as much. Moreover, the decision sets aside quite peremptorily the reasoning of several unanimous decisions of this court. Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc., 2 Cir., 110 F.2d 970, 133 A.L.R. 255; Ulm v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 492; Id., 117 F.2d 222, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 567, 61 S.Ct. 941, 85 L.Ed. 1525; United States v. Mortimer, 2 Cir., 118 F.2d 266, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 616, 62 S.Ct. 58, 86 L.Ed. -; Reed v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 252; 40 Mich. L.Rev. 1105; 11 Brooklyn L.Rev. 78. And it >now originates a process of restrictive interpretation of the statute which we have hitherto unanimously repudiated. I certainly agree that judicial legislation should be “cautious” and “interstitial.” But I think that rule applies as much to judicial limitation upon, as to judicial expansion of, reforming legislation- — -that zeal against reform is as much to be guarded against as zeal for reform. It is unwise, if not dangerous, policy to read restrictions into a statute because we personally cannot believe that Congress intended the result which the words themselves require. Others, including the greatest authorities in the field of evidence — e. g., Wigmore, Morgan, and the makers of the A. L. I. Code of Evidence2 — cannot believe Congress intended such unexpressed limitations, and neither can I.
We should note that the trial judge refused all offer of proof that the statement “was signed in the regular course of business and that it was the regular course of such business to make such statement.” Hence the exclusion was made on the basis that, even if the statement fulfilled the statutory conditions, there was still something in it which prevented its use. And this is so decided, even though the statute itself states that “any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be admissible as evidence of said act, transaction, occurrence, or event” if the conditions above referred to are fulfilled. “All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but they shall not affect its admissibility. The term ‘business’ shall include business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind.” (Italics mine.) The engineer’s statement is direct relevant testimony of the kind which any court of justice ought to desire to admit, particularly now that the accident of death otherwise seals his mouth. Such a chance happening ought not to control proof or limit it substantially to one side only.3 The statement is not *1000of the much more doubtful type excluded by the New York cases, herein relied on, for those cases dealt with entries of other people’s statements, or hearsay so far as the entrant himself mas concerned. Yet those decisions have received Wigmore’s severe criticism (Evidence, 3d Ed. 1940, § 1530a), which was cited with approval by us in the Ulm case.4 The limitation here added to the statute goes beyond anything I know of in any state or federal precedents on this uniform and model statute and clearly must interdict such normal things as reports of accidents or even passenger disputes made regularly by street railway motormen or bus operators and, logically, even the judicially quite familiar log of a ship at sea.
I think we are justified in asking for some more precise formulation of the restriction than is stated in the opinion. If we are now to reverse the uniform trend of this court up to now in its favorable construction of the statute, those of us who are doubtful of the wisdom of the step are entitled to know what it really is. And if judges, lawyers, and litigants must comport themselves accordingly, they, too, are entitled to a like definition. I find both rationale and restriction vague and nebulous. Apparently the stressed reason is the motive to misrepresent — a reason which went out of favor a century ago when disqualification for interest was abolished, and when judges and juries were granted some sophistication in withstanding exposure to possible perjury and allowed to hear the entire evidence, not merely chosen parts thereof. Is a court then to admit or exclude, depending on its preliminary guess (without the benefit of all the evidence) as to whether the proffered evidence “is dripping with motivations to misrepresent”? If such a rule is-. really applied logically, and without fear ■or favor, then we are, indeed, back in the past of even the common-law rule; of course there is generally some possible motive to misrepresent in all entries of past events which are the subject of present litigation. But if the turning point is the degree of possible motivation, then we have a hopelessly unfair subjective test depending upon the initial brusque reactions of the trier.
On the other hand, perhaps the stress on use “in an anticipated lawsuit” is intended both to suggest the inherent vice so feared, as well as to offer a yardstick to determine the extent of its excision. If so — and the argument is not developed — I submit that it, too, is both an illogical and an ttnfair test. Since the first cave man made notches on a stick, I had supposed that both the purpose and the value of records were their use in future disputes — to prevent many, to settle others. As a matter of fact, this very argument was considered at length and rejected on the authorities by us in United States v. Mortimer, supra. So I ask, with all deference, what really is the restriction on evidence which is now propounded ?
The argumentation supporting exclusion here to my mind clearly demonstrates that the statute should be favorably construed. The acute analysis of the trend away from common-law fears of hearsay, to the almost complete freedom from such shackles of the proposed Institute Code shows what the trend of the times is.5 ■The point is clinched by the history of this statute and its proposal by a committee of the most distinguished experts of this country (including the revered Judge Hough of this court). Of course the statute grew in part from the business-entries rule of the common law.6 But if that is *1001all the experts had in mind — if their reform was to be minor and trivial, not major as they thought — they would surely have left out, at the very least, all the words of the statute I have italicized above. Those words have no place in the statute as here construed. Actually the experts intended, as they show,7 to make a broad general rule which would go beyond all the diversities and vagaries of the common law, or of the partial and various statutes, of the different states and actually settle the matter. I believe they should be held to have accomplished this result.
Certain further suggestions may be noted. First, this is not a statute limited to evidence in jury trials — now had in only a small number of even the usual civil actions8 — but one applicable to all courts of the United States, bankruptcy, claims, customs and patent appeals, or even administrative courts, if and as constituted, No policy developed from history of restrictions on jury trials is therefore applicable; the statute makers were clearly following the modern trend that juries, like other triers, can do a better job clear-eyed than with judicial blinders. Second, the suggestion that “regular course of 'business” are words of art which contain in themselves some such prohibition as “without motive to misrepresent” seems to me more shrewd and labored than frank or even helpful in defining the projected rule. One may add, with deference, that this is a new technique of judicial legislation; it will permit extensive incorporation of almost any ancient rule into new reform legislation merely by saying that certain ordinary and well-known expressions include the common law in themselves. The partial and eclectic nature of the meaning here ascribed to “regular course of business” is shown by a mere statement of this particular common-law rule — as stated above, there were other rules which also led to this reform. Wig-more, Evidence, 3d Ed. 1940, §§ 1521, 1528, lists several different and distinct requirements: death or absence of the entrant; regular course of business, with an English limitation of a duty owed to a third person; regularity of entry; contemporaneousness; by some courts, no mo-five to misrepresent;9 a writing. Refer-e,nce to the sta^te will show that some of these are carefully continued; others are as care^^y omitted. The only reason that technique here employed does not bnn& back the requirements, say, of death, or duty owed a third person is that bere those conditions appear fulfilled. In another case logic would require that *bey be brought back also,
Moreover, I feel I should add, with reference to this (as it seems to me) wholly forced meaning of “regular course of business,” that I can find nothing in the history of the statute or in the cases construing it to justify hanging so much on so little. Certainly our cases look the other way; and United States v. Mortimer, supra, definitely repudiates it in holding that a document prepared for the purpose of trial is within the statute. In this connection I do not understand the reiterated importance of Needle v. New York Railways Corp., supra, for it does not deal with entries by an interested person at all. It merely reiterates the New York rule, criticized by Wigmore,10 that entry by a policeman of another’s pure *1002hearsay oral statements cannot be received.11 I fear the case has been misunderstood.
Again, some suggestion is made that later proposals for reform may be better than this statute because they perhaps give more discretion to exclude to the trial court. On the contrary, these proposals, such as the Institute’s Code, carry the trend towards free admission further and extend it to hearsay generally. Moreover, the present statutory requirements provide a large area of judicial judgment, as we had particular occasion to point out in the second opinion in the Ulm case, 117 F.2d 222. Had the trial judge here been willing to listen to the examination and cross-examination of witnesses as to the regularity of the claimed course of business, and then found that it had not been shown, we could hardly have objected to the exclusion of the evidence. For it is the holding that under no circumstances could this report be received because it must be considered saturated with motives to misrepresent that I find so disturbing. But even if we could think of, or ourselves devise, a better statute, we should nevertheless accept what we have before us, representing as it does a considered judgment, the product of the best modern thinking, that on balance more harm comes from excluding biased evidence, where relevant, than from admitting it. I feel strongly that it is serious business to emasculate a carefully prepared statutory reform.
Finally, the failure to define the extent of the restriction makes the result a portent of future trouble. Stress is laid on the existence of a powerful motive to misrepresent; but what constitutes such a motive is left at large, seemingly to the hasty discretion of the trier, in the midst of a case. I submit that there is hardly a grocer’s account book which could not be excluded on that basis. If business houses wish honestly to put themselves in the situation contemplated by the statute, how are they to do so? As it stands, the answer now must be that they cannot. Contrary to the unconditional language of the statute, the result is up to the stvift reactions of the moment on the part of the trial judge.
II. I agree that the other two proffers of evidence were wrongfully refused. And I wish we could persuade the district judges of the wisdom of L. Hand, J.’s admonition in United States v. White, 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 181, 186, that “the disposition to rule out evidence because it offends against some canon of the law of evidence is to be discouraged; admission seldom does any harm, while exclusion often proves extremely embarrassing in sustaining a judgment fundamentally just.” The number of verdicts which have been recently put in jeopardy by harsh exclusions seems to me distressing. See Ulm v. Moore-McCormack Lines, supra; United States v. White, supra; Reed v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, supra; Commercial Banking Corp. v. Martel, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 846; Jayne v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 317; United States v. Pignatelli, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 643, 646; Dellefield v. Blockdel Realty Co., 2 Cir., 128 F.2d 85. Since I believe reversal should'' follow the first exclusion here discussed, I do not need to decide the serious question whether or not these errors can be considered harmless. I agree that the charge on burden of proof was not erroneous.

 How “official” this report was under Mass.Gen.Laws (Ter.Ed.) 1932, c. 159, §§ 28, 29 (requiring an inspector of the Commission to report on railroad accidents) is not immediately pertinent in my view; it becomes relevant, however, on the view so stressed in the majority opinion of the importance of an assumed motive to misrepresent. That this was a dignified inquiry in the presence of a state official would surely tend to show that the result was no- more constructively unreliable than, say, the report of the government’s accountant, made for use of the prosecution at the approaching trial, in United States v. Mortimer, 2 Cir., 118 F.2d 266, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 616, 62 S.Ct. 58, 86 L.Ed. —. Criticism of the nature and extent of the defendants’ offer of proof herein seems unjustified, in view of the refusal of the district court to consider the matter; counsel cannot be forced to contempt of the district court to show us what we can easily see he was trying to do. Meaney v. United States, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 538, 130 A.L.R. 973.

 Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed.1940, § 1530a; A. L. I. Code of Evidence, Final Draft, 1942, 184 — 5. Morgan was, of course, the major draftsman of this model statute. Morgan and others, The Law of Evidence, 1927, c. 5; Ulm v. Moore-McCormack Lines, supra.

 Of course death is not a condition under the statute (unlike the common law). The reason for this, it seems to me clear, is the recognition that unless there is some good reason, such as either convenience of proof or non-availability of the witness, the attempt to suppress living testimony for a prearranged memorandum is too obvious to fool modern triers and too foolhardy to be often attempted. In framing a broad statute, therefore, it would be foolish to insert a limitation *1000often unfair, where misuse almost inevitably wojtld incur its proper penalty.

 As Wigmore says, the objection is, by the express provision of the second sentence of the statute, to affect the weight, but not the admissibility, of the statement. The rehabilitation of the New York cases here made, contrary to our previous view, and thus promoting not uniformity, but diversity, of construction of a general statute (adopted in several states, Wigmore, op. cit. § 1520 ; 40 Mich.L.Rev. 1126), is against our views as to uniform legislation generally, even in the substantive field. United States v. Novsam Realty Corp., 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 456; Madison Personal Loan, Inc., v. Parker, 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 143.

 Reference might also have' been made to the authorities, including the new English Evidence Act, cited in Boerner v. United States, 2 Cir., 117 F.2d 387, 389, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 587, 61 S.Ct. 1120, 85 L.Ed. 1542. The provision quoted in note 45 of the opinion would not justify exclusion here (cf. note 1, supra); moreover, it is a carefully defined legislative provision, not a vague judicial limitation.

 As well as the shop-book rule and the rule for the use of memoranda to revive memory or as records of past recollection, *1001and numerous attempts at statutory or other revision of these rules. Morgan and others, The Law of Evidence, 1927, c. 5; Wigmore, op. cit. §§ 1520-1530a; 11 Brooklyn L.Rev. 78. And Attorney General Cummings, in recommending the legislation to Congress, merely rehearsed this background without in any way suggesting the completely stultifying addition here made to the statute.

 See Morgan and Wigmore, cited notes 2 and 6, supra. I think these noted experts are highly competent witnesses as to the intent and meaning of the statute they originated and sponsored; and both their affirmative statements and their severe criticism of the New York cases, which are much less restrictive than our present decision (see notes 4, 10, and 11, herein), demonstrate that they never have dreamed that some requirement of a motive to misrepresent could or should be read into the statute.

 In less than five per cent of all civil cases, and in about one-seventh of the contested civil cases before the court. Ann.Rep.Dir.Adm.Off. U. S. Courts, 1941, Table 7, p. 105.

 Not even mentioned as a requirement in the discussion prefacing the model act. Morgan and others, The Law of Evidence, 1927, c. 5.

 As “again going directly contrary to the express words” of the statute. Wig-more, op. cit. § 1530a.

 See Geroeami v. Fancy F. &P. Corp., 249 App.Div. 221, 291 N.Y.S. 837.