See also: ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE
LAWS–Judicial Notice; OFFICIAL RECORDS AND REPORTS
REGULATIONS.

1.  Rules of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings

1(a).  Federal Administrative Proceedings

Whether the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to administrative proceedings is determined by the governing statute, FRE 1101(e), and agency regulations.  Some federal statutes specifically state the extent to which the Rules apply to administrative proceedings.{footnote}E.g., National Labor Relations Act § 10(b) (“Any such [unfair labor practice] proceeding shall, so far as practicable, be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in the district courts . . . .”).
See also NLRB v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 569 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1978) (NLRB erroneously ignored balancing test for prior conviuctions under FRE 609(a)(1)); NLRB v. Vangas, Inc., 517 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1975) (applying FRE 613(b) in review of admission of prior inconsistent statement at NLRB proceeding).
See generally NLRB v. Stark, 525 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1975) (discussing leglislative history of National Labor Relations Act § 10(b), holding that it is for judiciary to determine how closely NLRB proceedings must conform to federal rules); NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., 294 F.2d 868, 875 (5th Cir. 1961) (same); General Engineering, Inc. v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 367, 374 (9th Cir. 1965) (same).{/footnote} The Administrative Procedures Act allows “any oral or documentary evidence” except “irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.”{footnote}5 U.S.C. § 556(d).
See also Gallagher v. NTSB, 953 F.2d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 1992) (toxicological report sufficiently authenticated for NTSB proceeding, to which APA applicable). {/footnote}  FRE 1101(e) identifies various administrative proceedings to which the Rules apply to the extent not otherwise provided by statute.  Finally, agency regulations sometimes state the applicable evidence standards.{footnote}E.g., 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(a) (1995) (authentication requirement for official records used in deportation proceedings); 12 C.F.R. § 509.36(a)(3) (evidence in OTS proceedings need only be “relevant, material, reliable, and not unduly repetitive”); 37 C.F.R. § 1.671(b) (1993) (patent interference proceedings); 37 C.F.R. § 1.292(a) (1993) (patent public use proceedings); 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(a) (1993) trademark inter partes proceedings).
See also OTS v. Lopez, 960 F.2d 958, 964 n. 11 (11th Cir. 1992) (hearsay bank ledger admissible in OTS proceeding){/footnote} 

In the absence of a specific statute or regulation to the contrary, however, rules of evidence are generally not binding in administrative proceedings.{footnote}Atlantic Marine, Inc. v. Bruce, 661 F.2d 898, 900 (5th Cir. 1981) (proceedings before Benefits Review Board); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Chubb, 741 F.2d 968, 972 (7th Cir. 1984) (best evidence rule inapplicable in proceedings under Black Lung Benefits Act); Maroon v. INS, 364 F.2d 982, 986 (8th Cir. 1966) (immigration); Cunanan v. INS, 856 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir. 1988) (immigration); In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (examination of patent applications).
But see Connectivut Light & Power Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 557 F.2d 349 (2d Cir. 1977) (implying that administrative law judge in proceeding to determine navigability of river should follow Federal Rules of Evidence); Iran v. INS, 656 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1981) (due process requires that government forms admitted in deportation proceedings be authenticated){/footnote}  It has been held that evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings if a reasonable mind might accept it as probative.{footnote}Atlantic Marine, Inc. v. Bruce, 661 F.2d 898, 900 (5th Cir. 1981) (proceedings before Benefits Review Board).{/footnote}

Hearsay is generally held admissible in federal administrative proceedings,{footnote}Central Michigan Administrative District Council v. NLRB, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33227 (6th Cir. 1996); Cunanan v. INS, 856 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir. 1988) (hearsay affidavit and form I-213 admissible in immigration proceeding); OTS v. Lopez, 960 F.2d 958, 964 n. 11 (11th Cir. 1992) (bank ledger admissible in OTS proceeding); In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (examination of patent applications).{/footnote} unless the applicable statute provides otherwise.{footnote}E.g., Walter N. Yoder & Sons v. NLRB, 754 F.2d 531 (4th Cir. 1985) (generally NLRB must not rely on hearsay); Central Freight Lines v. NLRB, 653 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1981) (hearsay affidavit improperly considered under residual exception); NLRB v. United San. Serv., 737 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1984) (hearsay affidavit improperly admitted).{/footnote}  The United States Supreme Court held in Richardson v. Perales that hearsay may constitute substantial evidence in administrative proceedings as long as there are factors present that  assure the “underlying reliability and probative value” of the evidence.{footnote}402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971).
See also Consolidation Coal Co. v. Chubb, 741 F.2d 968, 972 (7th Cir. 1984) (X-ray and report admissible in proceedings under Black Lung Benefits Act, citing Richardson); Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1975) (hearsay admissible if probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”); Wathen v. U.S., 527 F.2d 1191 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (newspaper articles properly considered by agency even though hearsay where they were corroborated and plaintiff never denied gist of articles).{/footnote}

1(b).  State Administrative Proceedings

Some states apply their rules of evidence to administrative proceedings, except as otherwise provided by a specific statute relating to the agency involved.{footnote}E.g., Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-612(2); N.D.C.C. § 28-32-06(1) (1994).
See also 3vt. Stat. Ann. § 810(1) (rules of evidence apply except when necessary to ascertain facts “not reasonably susceptible of proof under those rules.”)
See also Taylor v. Taylor, 899 P.2d 523, 525 (Mont. 1995) (child support enforcement); In re Peterson, 518 N.W.2d 690, 693 (N.D. 1994) (driver’s license revocation); In re Twenty-Four Electric Utilities, 627 A.2d 355, 361 (Vt. 1993) (rule on experts applicable to review of decision by Public Service Board).{/footnote}  The Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, however, allows “any oral or documentary evidence” except “irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.”{footnote}E.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-178.
Accord Robinson v. Smith, 683 A.2d 481, 488 (D.C. App. 1996) (D.C. Public Schools proceeding); Washington Post v. Dep’t of Employment Svcs., 675 A.2d 37, 43 (D.C. App. 1996).{/footnote}  In the absence of a specific statute or regulation to the contrary, however, rules of evidence are generally not binding in administrative proceedings.{footnote}Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, & 3-111(b) (agency decisions not to be reversed for “failure to observe the technical rules of evidence” unless failure “materially affected the rights of any party and resulted in substantial injustice to him or her).{/footnote}  Hearsay, for exampe, is generally held admissible in state administrative proceedings.{footnote}Andresen v. New York Department of Motor Vehicles, 227 A.D.2d 617; 643 N.Y.S.2d 598 (1996); Robinson v. Smith, 683 A.2d 481, 488 (D.C. App. 1996) (D.C. Public Schools proceeding); Washington Post v. Dep’t of Employment Svcs., 675 A.2d 37, 43 (D.C. App. 1996).
Contra Eastman v. Department of Public Aid, 534 N.E.2d 458, 461 (Ill. Ct. App. 1989) (although some evidence rules may be relaxed in an administrative proceeding, the administrative statutes do not abrogate the fundamental  rules of evidence such as hearsay); Russell v. License Appeal Comm’n, 273 N.E.2d 650, 653 (___1971) (hearsay rule “not merely a technical rule of evidence”).{/footnote}

2.  District Court Review

 
The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the review of federal agency actions "when the facts are subject to trial de novo" under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(F).{footnote}FRE 101, 1101(e).{/footnote}

3.  Admissibility of Records of Proceedings

An administrative consent order has been held inadmissible in a subsequent civil cases where the administrative body’s findings were neither admitted nor denied by the adverse party.{footnote}Frymire-Brinati v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 2 F.3d 183 (7th Cir. 1993).{/footnote}

3(a).  Judicial Notice

It has been held that judicial notice may be taken of the records of administrative proceedings.{footnote}Mack v. South Bay Beer Dist., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1986); Schapansky v. Department of Transportation, 735 F.2d 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (companion case before Merit Systems Protection Board).
Wolfe v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 46 Cal. App. 4th 554, 560, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 882 (1996) (related proceeding); Moore v. St. Petersburg, 662 So.2d 1342 (Fla. App. 1995); All Purpose Nursing Service v. Human Rights Commission, 563 N.E.2d 844, 848 (Ill. App. 1990) (related proceedings involving same parties); Moore v. Utah Technical College, 727 P.2d 634, 639 (Utah 1986) (citing Utah R. Evid. 201(a), (b), (c), (f)).
CHECK 599 A.2d 548 (N.J. App. 1991); 622 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1992).{/footnote}  Indeed, a federal courts may take judicial notice of records in a state administrative proceeding.{footnote}Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 789 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).{/footnote} In this context, judicial notice is for the sole purpose of understanding the nature and result of the administrative proceedings, not for the truth of any factual assertions or findings in those proceedings.{footnote}Singh v. Bowsher, 786 F.2d 432 (U.S. App. D.C. 1986).{/footnote}

Bibliography

Ernest H. Schopler, Annot., Hearsay Evidence in Proceedings Before Federal Administrative Agencies, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 76 (1971).