I was under the impression that newspaper articles are admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902) as self-authenticating documents. Take a look at point 6:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
The birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser for August 13, 1961 clearly states that it is in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspaper. It is one small piece of corroborating evidence. The second announcement in the August 14, 1961 Honolulu Star-Bulliten corroborates the first announcement.
Good point, Nero germanicus.
That means the Kenyan newspaper articles about “Kenyan born Barack Obama” running for us senate should also be admissible.
“To: Tau Food
I was under the impression that newspaper articles are admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902) as self-authenticating documents. Take a look at point 6: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
The birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser for August 13,1961 clearly states that it is in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspaper. It is one small piece of corroborating evidence. The second announcement in the August 14,1961 Honolulu Star-Bulliten corroborates the first announcement.
149 posted on Wed Apr 10 2013 13:33:17 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Nero Germanicus [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies | Report Abuse]”
Per
“I was under the impression that newspaper articles are admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 902) as self-authenticating documents.”
Here is the text of “point 6” of Rule 902:
“(6) Newspapers and Periodicals. Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.”
So far NO PRINTED copies of the newspaper announcements have been found, IIRC, but only microfilm images in multiple locations (at least three, IIRC).
All “self-authenticating evidence” is entitled to hearsay exception on a “prima facie” basis which means that it can still be challenged on a motion if there is reason to question to authenticity.
There are claims that there is evidence that Barry’s birth announcements have been spliced into microfilm image and the corrupted microfilm distributed to multiple repositories anticipating that they would be found there, for example. Evidence and expert testimony could be taken in depositions that could lead to a discovery hearing.
In any case if Stanley delivered Barry in Kenya and the grandparents reported to Hawaii vital records the birth to their claimed Hawaii resident daughter whose permanent address was their home, the newspaper announcements would look identical with no birth location reported, just the address of the mother (cross-confirmed by the INS FOIA docs).
When you want to introduce into evidence any kind of object, including an newspaper, you must "authenticate" the object, i.e., offer evidence to prove that the object is what you claim it to be. If you authenticate a July 10, 1975 issue of the New York Times, you have only proved that the object is what you claim it to be, i.e., a genuine July 10, 1975 issue of the New York Times.
You run into the hearsay problem when you want to prove more than that it is a genuine copy of the newspaper. If you want to use what is written in the newspaper as evidence that what is said there is true, then the hearsay rule comes into play and you have to find an exception to the hearsay rule.
Let me run that by you again. If all you want to prove is that the piece of paper is a newspaper, then authentication is enough. If you want to also use the content of the newspaper as evidence that something it says is true, you have to overcome the hearsay rule.