C. Chris King’s Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment Was Not Inadmissible Hearsay.

Chris King is a journalist who covers New Hampshire civil rights cases. He holds a law degree. He has brought civil rights cases, including abuse of police authority cases, in New Hampshire (actually in Ohio). On December

15,2011 King swore an affidavit opposing summary judgment in this case, submitted to the trial court.

The affidavit alleged that: On May 11, 2011 municipal defendants-appellees were bound by Franconia police policies, to wit: 1) officer shall not attempt to overcome fleeing vehicle; 2) officer shall not

intentionally use a police vehicle to ram a suspect vehicle to stop it or put it into a ditch; 3) suspect vehicle pursuit shall end when suspect has been identified for later apprehension and there is no need for immediate (27) apprehension; 4)OC spray shall be used only if a suspect is warned first; 5)OC spray shall not be used in circumstances where a suspect will feel trapped. Affidavit of King, ADD, p 23. King alleged that defendant-appellees attorney Mullen provided these Franconia police policies to King during his litigation captioned, Kingcast v NH Attorney General, Town of Franconia, and Chief Montminy, Grafton Superior 07E-268. King’s affidavit alleged others facts of a years long pattern of municipal defendants-appellees incidents that the Estate alleged showed admissible evidence in the instant case of material issues of fact on which issues of section 1983 turn which present sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury. See

Hearsay is: that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others. Ilopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 4 Sup. Ct. 202. 28 L. Ed. 202; Morell v. Morell, 157 Ind. 170, 00 N. E. 1002; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 570;People v. Kraft, 01 Hun, 474, 30 N. Y. Supp. 1034. King’s affidavit, at least concerning Franconia police documents received in his litigation against some defendants-appellees on Franconia police policy, were not hearsay, but rather his personal account of what he read (28) and knew based on those documents. It does not matter at summary judgment whether the testimony is true, but rather that allegations made are within an affiant’s personal knowledge: Our prior decisions may not have uniformly recited the same language in describing genuine factual issues under Rule 56, but it is clear enough from our recent cases that at the summary judgment stage the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. ANDERSON v. LIBERTY LOBBY, INC., 477 U.S. 242, 243 (1986). The affidavit need not meet admissibility standards of a trial: We do not mean that the nonmoving party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. Obviously, Rule 56 does not require the nonmoving party to depose her own witnesses. CELOTEX CORP. v. CATRETT, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

The law requires only that the affidavit be in a form that is either itself admissible or that its contents appear to be admissible at trial: Subdivision (c)(2) provides that a party may object that material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. The objection functions much as an objection at trial, adjusted for the pretrial setting. The burden is on the proponent to show that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form that is anticipated. FRCP 56(c)(2),Committee Notes on Rules—2010 Amendment. King is willing to testify at trial. (29) The documents of

municipal defendants-appellees’ police policies, infra, were acquired from municipal defendants-appellees counsel in a different lawsuit. Therefore the contents of the

documents are admissible from King’s personal knowledge or through a Federal Rules of Evidence 802 business records exception. King affidavit allegations of fact are also

admissible under the theory, infra, that other evidence of the facts alleged exist in the record, particularly in the Nickels and Whipple affidavits, where Nickels interviewed and Whipple swore to many of the same witnesses as King……

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful