28 U.S.C. § 1733

Government records and papers; copies

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Books or records of account or minutes of proceedings of any department or agency of the United States shall be admissible to prove the act, transaction or occurrence as a memorandum of which the same were made or kept.(b) Properly authenticated copies or transcripts of any books, records, papers or documents of any department or agency of the United States shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof.(c) This section does not apply to cases, actions, and proceedings to which the Federal Rules of Evidence apply.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 946; Pub. L. 93–595, § 2(c), Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 661–667, 671 (R.S. §§ 882–886, 889; July 31, 1894, ch. 174, §§ 17, 22, 28 Stat. 210; Mar. 2, 1895, ch. 177, § 10, 28 Stat. 809; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §§ 301, 302, 304, 310, 42 Stat. 23–25; May 10, 1934, ch. 277, § 512, 48 Stat. 758; June 19, 1934, ch. 653, § 6(a), 48 Stat. 1109).

The consolidation of sections 661–667 and 671 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., permitted omission of obsolete, unnecessary and repetitive provisions in such sections. For example, the provision in section 665 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., authorizing the court to require production of documents on a plea of non est factum, was omitted. Such plea is obsolete in Federal practice.

Numerous provisions with respect to authentication were omitted as covered by Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Likewise the provision that official seals shall be judicially noticed was omitted as unnecessary. Seals of Federal agencies are judicially noticed by States and Federal courts without statutory mandate. Gardner v. Barney, 1867, 6 Wall. 499, 73 U.S.C. 499, 18 L.Ed. 890, 31 C.J.S. 599 n. 27–30 and 23 C.J.S. 99 n. 41. The same principle unquestionably will apply to seals of Government corporations.

Words “of any corporation all the stock of which is beneficially owned by the United States, either directly or indirectly”, in section 661 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as covered by “or agency”. The revised section was broadened to apply to “any department or agency”. (See reviser’s note under section 1345 of this title.)

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subsec. (c), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Amendments

1975—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 93–595 added subsec. (c).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 106 cases, 1949–2019 · leading case: State v. Ramirez, 556 P.2d 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Ramirez, 556 P.2d 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1733 (1970). It should be noted that in most instances public statements and documents prepared by a public official in the performance of official duties are admissible under various exceptions to the hearsay rule, usually under the "business records" exception.”

United States v. Kenneth R. Farris, 517 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1975). · cites it 5× “In regard to admissibility, 28 U.S.C. § 1733 (b) provides that “[pjroperly authenticated copies or transcripts of any books, records, papers or documents of any department or agency of the United States shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof.”

United States v. Larry Ware, 247 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1957). · cites it 2× “The government also urges that they were admissible under the Government’s Records Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1733 . Although both parties have lumped together consideration of the exhibits made by the narcotic agents and the exhibits made by the government chemist, we have found it…”

United States v. Cent. Gulf Lines, Inc., 747 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “Central Gulf argues, however, that the documents are not authenticated under the Government Record Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1733 (1982). Subsection (c) of the Statute provides that “[t]his section does not apply to cases, actions, and proceedings to which the Federal Rules of…”

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1125 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “, admission of official records in federal litigation was governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1733 (a), which provided: Books or records of account or minutes of proceedings of any department or agency of the United States shall be admissible to prove the act, transaction or occurrence as a…”

R. H. Colvin v. United States, 479 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1973). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 1733 , the relative narrowness of which is illustrated by its nonapplicability to nonfederal public agencies, thus necessitating resort to the less appropriate business record exception to the hearsay rule.”

Chung Young Chew v. John P. Boyd, Dist. Dir. of Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., United States Dep't of Just., Seattle Dist., 309 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1962). · cites it 2× “23 But the Board held that, in any event, this exhibit had been properly admitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1733 (b) relating to the admission of “properly authenticated” copies of transcripts of any books, records, papers or documents of any department or agency of the United States.”

Ronald Clyde Nelson v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 642 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1981). “§ 1732 or the Government Records Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1733 , and their transmission to the jury room was prejudicial since “[t]he jury thus had before it a neat condensation of the Government’s whole case against a defendant.”

United States v. Kenneth Dale Hudson, 479 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1973). · cites it 3× “Admissibility as an exception to the hearsay rule must therefore be based upon a showing that it qualified as an official document under 28 U.S.C. § 1733 (a) which provides: Books or records of account or minutes of proceedings of any department or agency of the United States…”

Dell Courtney KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GULF OIL Co., Defendant-Appellee, 581 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir. 1978). “We are unable to evaluate the argument concerning the admissibility of a consent decree in another case, which was rejected by the trial judge; the record does not show that a copy of this decree was ever offered in evidence, nor is a copy included in the record.”

Brown v. ASD Computing Ctr., 519 F. Supp. 1096 (S.D. Ohio 1981). “Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, hearsay contained in agency memoranda or records could be admitted into evidence either under 28 U.”

McDaniel v. Gangarosa, 191 S.E.2d 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “28 U. S. C. § 1733 provides: "(a) Books or records of account or minutes of proceedings of any department or agency of the United States shall be admissible to prove the act, transaction or occurrence as a memorandum of which the same were made or kept.”

Show all 106 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1733(b) — 1 case

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. E. Massachusetts Street Ry. Co., (Two Cases), 235 F.2d 700 (1st Cir. 1956).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.