Home

FreeQuick bite 01.05.01 · Library 01 · Evidence Fundamentals & Hearsay

Party admissions

Party admissions: one result, two routes

Evid. Code §§ 1220–1224 · FRE 801(d)(2)

Federal law says a party’s own statement is not hearsay. California says it is, then excepts it. Same destination, except at one door.

His ownAdoptedAuthorizedAgent oremployeeCo-conspirator FEDERAL CALIFORNIA 801(d)(2)(A)801(d)(2)(B)801(d)(2)(C)801(d)(2)(D)801(d)(2)(E) § 1220§ 1221§ 1222— none —§ 1223 Four doors line up. The fifth one only exists in federal court.

Scroll the diagram sideways →

Plate 01.05.01 California never built the fourth door. An employee’s email on a matter within the scope of the job walks into federal court under 801(d)(2)(D). In state court you must show the speaker was authorized to speak under § 1222, or find another route entirely.
Not requiredPersonal knowledge

A party is stuck with what he said.

Not requiredAgainst interest

Different exception. This one asks only who spoke.

RequiredOffered against the party

Your own clientā€™s statement is hearsay.

In the courtroom
FederalFRE 801(d)(2)The statement counts toward authority, agency or conspiracy but cannot alone establish them.
California§§ 1220–1224§ 1224 reaches the person whose conduct the party’s liability rests on.
LayeringEvery level of an out‑of‑court statement needs its own door. An admission quoting a stranger still has a stranger problem.
Application

This is the most productive exception in a commercial case, because most such cases are made of the other side’s own documents. It is also the one argued worst, because the offering lawyer says “it’s an admission” and stops there.

The judge needs three things: the statement, the party it is offered against, and the door. Name the door by number. In state court, if the speaker is an employee rather than a spokesman, go to § 1222 and show the authorization—or reframe the offer as a business record, effect on the listener, or an operative fact.

How it sounds

Offering it“Offered against the defendant—his own statement, section 1220. No foundation beyond authorship.”

The employee email, in state court“Section 1222. Ms. Ruiz was the compliance officer; answering this regulator was her assignment. The authorization is Exhibit 14.”

Three traps
  • Offering your own client’s words.The rule runs one way; his helpful email is hearsay when you offer it.
  • Importing 801(d)(2)(D) into state court.No California equivalent exists. Authorization, not employment, is the § 1222 test.
  • Stopping at the first level.An admission repeating a third party gets the outer layer in and leaves the inner one exposed.
Where to go deeper
ArticleLivin’ on the Edge

Steven Tyler and party admissions.

Quick bite 01.01.06Section 352

What still excludes an admission.

CourseEvidence 101

The four hearsay groups in order.

This is one of two hundred and fifty-seven. The sheet prints on a single page, front and back, and fits a trial binder.

Download the sheet (PDF)

You just read one. The membership opens the other two hundred and fifty-six.

All four courses, sixteen hours of MCLE, the Trial War Room, and every video as it goes up. Thirty-day money-back guarantee.

See the membership
Download the sheet (PDF)