You're viewing Docket Item 76 from the case United States of America v. Campbell et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-20054
Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER

On February 1, 2012, a grand jury returned a nine-count indictment against the Defendants,

Sandra Campbell and Domonique Campbell, both of whom were accused of, inter alia, conspiring

to defraud the Detroit Public School District (“DPS”), conspiracy to launder the proceeds of the

scheme to defraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Sandra Campbell has requested the

admission of a certified copy of a police report which indicates that she reported her laptop stolen.

The Government objects to the admission of the document because it contains hearsay statements.

A police report which contains the observations of the authoring officer is generally

admissible as a business record if offered by the defendant. United States v. Snyder, 787 F.2d 1429,

1434 (10th Cir. 1986) (“[E]ntries in a police or investigating officer’s report which result from the

officer’s own observations and knowledge” are admissible under Rule 803(6) if offered by the

defendant); United States v. Smith, 521 F.2d 957, 964-65 (D.C. Cir. 1975). However, when the

report contains statements of a third-party, those statements are considered hearsay and must meet

a hearsay exception in order to be admitted. Miller v. Field, 35 F.3d 1088, 1091 (6th Cir. 1994).

Here, the report contains out-of-court statements made by Sandra Campbell. Campbell has not

provided an exception to the hearsay rule which would allow the admission of these statements.

Nevertheless, a report that is offered for a non-hearsay purpose may be admissible. In this

case, the police report offered by Sandra Campbell is admissible as evidence that she reported

her laptop stolen but is not admissible as evidence that the laptop was actually stolen. United

States v. Ott, 229 F.3d 1155, at *5 (6th Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision) (“A police report

detailing the facts of an alleged theft, which is offered only to prove that the theft was reported,

says nothing whatsoever about whether that item was, in fact, actually stolen. Such a report is

not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and is not hearsay at all.”); see also United

States v. Graham, 391 F.2d 439, 448 (6th Cir. 1968) (“Were it relevant, the police record in

evidence would of course be admissible as proof that the car to which it referred had been

reported stolen.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 31, 2013

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr.
JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.
U.S. District Judge

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their
respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on July 31, 2013.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

s/ Kay Doaks
Case Manager

2