§ 2 Judicial Notice
§ 3 Presumptions
3(3) Matai
§ 4 Relevance
§ 5 Privileges
§ 6 Witnesses
6(1) General Rule of Competency
6(2) Credibility and Impeachment
§ 7 Opinions and Expert Testimony
§ 9 Authentication and Identification
§ 10 Contents of Writings, Recordings & Photographs
§ 1 General Provisions
The propriety of the admission of certain evidence is a matter for consideration by the Trial Court and cannot be first considered on appeal. Dwyer v. McDonald, 1 A.S.R. 652.
Objections to the propriety of admission of evidence or reputation must be specific or will be overruled. Dwyer v. McDonald, 1 A.S.R. 652.
Whether or not to view damaged vehicle or highway where collision occurred is in discretion of trial judge, and failure to do so is not error. Faatamala v. Haleck, 4 A.S.R. 888.
According to Rules of Procedure, unless timely and sufficient objection is made to introduction of inadmissible evidence, question of admission will not be considered on appeal. (Rule 7C.) Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Court will not relax provisions requiring objections to admission of evidence at time of trial in order to raise objections on appeal, where appellant has not been prejudiced by evidence admitted. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Hearsay admitted with no objection may be properly considered and given natural probative effect. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Viewing of disputed land is matter for trial court’s discretion, and court is not in error in failing to view when view was never requested by appellant. Willis v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 926.
On appeal, a party should not make an objection to evidence after it has already been admitted without objection at the trial level. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 18 A.S.R.2d 14.
§ 2 Judicial Notice
Court takes judicial notice of fact that when members of Samoan family took possession of bush land it was on behalf of matai as owner of communal family property. Soliai v. Levu, 2 A.S.R. 440.
Courts take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge of every person of ordinary understanding and intelligence, such as fact that Samoans cleared bush land and occupied it, claiming it on behalf of their families. Toomata v. Vea, 2 A.S.R. 564.
Court will take judicial notice of its own records. Siaosi v. Asoau, 3 A.S.R. 293.
Judicial notice may be taken of facts of local history which are of general knowledge. Lualemana v. Brown, 3 A.S.R. 348.
Finding of fact of Trial Court will be set aside upon appeal if contradicted by decisions in previous High Court cases which Trial Court failed to take judicial notice of. Leasiolagi v. Faumui, 3 A.S.R. 509.
Court takes judicial notice of Samoan customs as matters of general knowledge. Betham v. Faumuina, 3 A.S.R. 537.
Court will take judicial notice of records in another proceeding, particularly where issues and parties are interrelated. Scanlan v. Steffany, 3 A.S.R. 583.
Appellate court may take judicial notice of any matter which trial court may, including records of interrelated proceeding. Scanlan v. Steffany, 3 A.S.R. 583.
Court takes judicial notice of customs of American Samoa which are of common knowledge, Seui v. Mata’afa, 4 A.S.R. 333.
Courts may take judicial notice of their own records for all purposes. Fanene v. Fanene, 4 A.S.R. 603.
Court will take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge. Bottling Corporation of Samoa v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 499.
Trial court may take judicial notice of War Damage Claim record in order to determine testimony of witness was false. Lualemana v. Magalei, 4 A.S.R. 849.
Court takes judicial notice of informality of Samoa thereby facilitating communication between public defender and accused. Fanene v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 957.
Appellate court could take judicial notice that appellee had recently assumed the office of district governor. Mose v. Tufele, 12 A.S.R.2d 31.
Judicial notice may be taken of facts generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. T.C.R.Ev. Rule 201(b)(1). Reine v. Fiame, 23 A.S.R.2d 36.
The court may take judicial notice of the generally known fact that in the Territory of American Samoa, Hurricane Val was stronger and more destructive than Hurricane Ofa in the harbor area where Pago Plaza is located. G.M. Meredith and Assoc. v. Blue Pacific Management Corp., 28 A.S.R.2d 60.
§ 3 Presumptions
§3(1) General Civil Actions
In civil case, all that is necessary for proof of allegations is preponderance of evidence. American Samoa v. Salanoa, 1 A.S.R. 487.
Where equal amount of evidence has been given by both parties, Court will determine which evidence preponderates by determining which is more reasonable. Maluia v. Tafetee, 1 A.S.R. 537.
Civil cases are decided upon weight of evidence and while evidence on neither side may be strong, the side with the strongest evidence wins. Asuega v. Lauti, 1 A.S.R. 549.
Civil cases are decided by weight of evidence, however slight that may be. Satele v. Maiavatele, 1 A.S.R. 563.
When evidence is equally balanced, party in whose favor presumption of law works will prevail. Leatutufu v. Iuli, 2 A.S.R. 328.
In civil case, mere preponderance of proof is all that is necessary to establish point in issue. Toomata v. Vea, 2 A.S.R. 564.
Practice, well established, such as Samoans clearing and claiming family lands before advent of United States Government, is presumed to have been followed in individual cases, and is accepted as sufficient proof of fact in question where primary evidence of such fact is lacking. Toomata v. Vea, 2 A.S.R. 564.
In civil cases, mere preponderance of proof is all that is necessary to establish point in issue. Fruean v. Mageo, 2 A.S.R. 591.
"Preponderance" standard means that if the parties' contradictory versions of the facts have equal evidentiary support and the plaintiff cannot establish superior credibility, the defendant must prevail. Lafaele v. Continental Insurance Co., 4 A.S.R.2d 131.
All other things being equal, positive testimony is entitled to more weight than negative testimony. Tagoai v. Tuiafono, 4 A.S.R. 252.
A public officer is presumed to act for purposes of promoting the public good and protecting the public interest. This presumption of regularity of official acts is rebuttable. Bottling Corporation of Samoa v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 938.
§3(2) Land & Titles Division
SEE PROPERTY § 8(2) – LAND & TITLES DIVISION
A presumption of ownership arises from possession of land. Amituanai v. Tuli, 2 A.S.R. 315.
Samoan custom that occupation and claim of ownership of land is on behalf of family establishes presumption to that effect in absence of contrary evidence. Soliai v. Levu, 2 A.S.R. 440.
§3(3) Matai
SEE MATAI TITLE DISPUTES
SEE SAMOAN CUSTOM § 8 – MATAI
Where witness testifies that possessor of land received permission from “matai” to use family lands, and testimony is only contradicted by denial, court generally finds that positive testimony to a thing within peculiar knowledge of witness prevails over negative testimony. Levu v. Maluia, 1 A.S.R. 197.
“Matai” is presumed to possess all powers usually possessed by virtue of such status until the contrary is shown by positive evidence. Tupua v. Aumavae, 1 A.S.R. 231.
In matai title cases, no evidence may be admitted attacking the validity of previously held titles as all previous holders of matai titles are assumed to have held their names legally. Teutusi v. Faga, 1 A.S.R. 543.
§ 4 Relevance
Co-plaintiff is not prejudiced where other parties stipulate as to issue of fact where he had opportunity to present his own contrary evidence, which was disbelieved by court. Taufaasau v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 947.
In deciding whether questions asked a witness by members of a legislative committee were relevant to the committee's charter, a court should impose no stricter standard than it would impose on itself in a similar case. Senate Select Investigating Committee v. Horning, 3 A.S.R.2d 14.
Questions about the disposal of government property were relevant to an inquiry into the causes of a government budget deficit. Sialega v. Taito (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 40.
An administrative law judge's order or opinion which has been vacated is inadmissible as evidence in a subsequent judicial proceeding. Interocean Ships, Inc. v. Samoan Gases, 24 A.S.R.2d 108.
If evidence of past crimes speaks more to defendant's proclivity to commit crimes in general, rather than his participation in the crime at hand, it has a high probability of instigating the jury to convict because defendant "is a bad person" - an unallowable inference. American Samoa Government v. Bernard, 26 A.S.R.2d 110.
The fact that this defendant is in the "general class" of those prone to commit such crimes, does not go to the modus operandi/identity of this particular defendant. Such evidence tends only to mark him as one of an undesirable, unremarkable sub-class, a distinction that would have a prejudicial effect and tend to mislead the jury. American Samoa Government v. Bernard, 26 A.S.R.2d 110.
In determining whether to admit prior crimes, wrongs or acts, length of time between the prior crimes and acts and the incident at hand is another factor to be considered. American Samoa Government v. Bernard, 26 A.S.R.2d 110.
Normally, the relevance of a witness' testimony is decided by the trial judge after the witness has been sworn and objections have been made. American Samoa Government v. Talamoni, 27 A.S.R.2d 123.
The government acts improperly when it introduces evidence of defendant's pleas of nolo contendere in previous criminal proceedings. T.C.R.Ev. 410. American Samoa Government v. Solaita, 27 A.S.R.2d 9.
A plea of nolo contendere is recognized as having no effect beyond the action in which it is entered and no evidentiary value as an admission of guilt. American Samoa Government v. Solaita, 27 A.S.R.2d 9.
Where prosecutors have improperly introduced evidence of defendant's pleas of nolo contendere in previous criminal proceedings, court will not grant a mistrial, but will strike and disregard the evidence. American Samoa Government v. Solaita, 27 A.S.R.2d 9.
§ 5 Privileges
RESERVED
§ 6 Witnesses
§6(1) General Rule of Competency
In American Samoa, witness may testify with respect to transaction with dead person even though witness is interested party, but court may look with skepticism upon such testimony. Sei v. Aumavae, 2 A.S.R. 396.
There is no dead man’s statute rendering witness incompetent to testify as to transaction with deceased person; consequently court will admit into evidence such testimony. Tuileata v. Talivaa, 3 A.S.R. 201.
Only in extraordinary circumstances will a court compel the testimony of the chief executive of the jurisdiction in which the court sits. Fa'atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.
Most information available from chief executive of state or territory can be just as easily obtained from lesser officials. Fa'atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.
Party may compel testimony from chief executive of state or territory only if it seems absolutely necessary to make out his case and the party can convince the court that there is some chance the testimony will enable him to prevail. Fa'atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.
Before being allowed to compel testimony of territorial Governor regarding alleged scheme to dispose of government property for less than its actual value, party must produce other evidence of Governor's personal involvement in such scheme. Fa'atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.
Where incumbent Governor was actively involved in affairs of a corporation before he became Governor and is the only available witness with detailed knowledge of events material to litigation involving the corporation, a party may compel his testimony. Fa'atiliga v. Lutali (Mem.), 3 A.S.R.2d 124.
Persons who are likely to be called as witnesses should be notified as far in advance of trial as possible. Judicial Memorandum, 4 A.S.R.2d 176.
§6(2) Credibility and Impeachment
Fact that witness conspired with plaintiff and others to do wrong to defendant with reference to subject of suit makes witness unworthy of credit. Sapela v. Mageo, 1 A.S.R. 143.
Where witnesses in land dispute are related to one of parties, their testimony must be based on such facts as will convince court that their testimony is good evidence and not biased opinion. Mailo v. Fuamaila, 1 A.S.R. 449.
Court may call disinterested parties as its own witnesses in matai title cases to testify as to existence of alleged title holder. Moelupe v. Savali, 1 A.S.R. 517.
Where witness for petitioners states charge attempted to be proved by petitioners is untrue, letters which allegedly contradict testimony will not be admitted into evidence since they impeach petitioner’s own witness. Mauga Family v. Mauga, 2 A.S.R. 213.
Court will apply doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” in weighing credibility of witness. Leano v. Leti, 2 A.S.R. 524.
A witness who was drinking at time of incident in question has less credibility than if he had not been drinking. Pan American Prints v. Mosegi, 3 A.S.R. 528.
Court discounts testimony of witness who is confused, unsubstantiated and irrelevant. Mageo v. Fuga, 4 A.S.R. 426.
Testimony of witness who makes false statement on material issue must be disregarded in entirety unless otherwise corroborated. Lualemana v. Magalei, 4 A.S.R. 849.
Witness whom makes contradictory statements as witness and files petition permeated with fraud lacks credibility. Tuliau v. Sunia, 4 A.S.R. 858.
That part of a witness's testimony is false may show that other parts of his testimony are also false. Samoa v. Gibbens, 3 A.S.R.2d 121.
Police officer's uncontroverted testimony that speed limit sign had been posted because the road was near a school did not bind the court to find that the posted limit applied only during school hours. American Samoa Government v. Sale Uo, 4 A.S.R.2d 14.
Testimony of litigant that at seventeen years of age he had personally entered into a boundary agreement with neighboring landowner, although at the time in question his father had been living and working on the land in question, was not credible. Falefia v. Sipili, 7 A.S.R.2d 1.
Although testimony and exhibits in earlier cases can be presumed to be as self-serving as those in the case being decided, they are sometimes helpful in providing historical context, prior consistent or inconsistent statements, and evidence offered by a party who had no reason to lie about the point the evidence tends to establish in the later case. Moea`i v. Te`o, 8 A.S.R.2d 85.
Court must choose among sharply conflicting statements of witnesses by reference to factors such as internal coherence and consistency, strength or weakness of motives to lie, conflict or consistency with other relatively objective sources of evidence, and court's own estimate of witnesses' demeanor and of inherent plausibility of testimony. Moea`i v. Te`o, 8 A.S.R.2d 85.
Trial court did not commit error in using the transcript from a prior preliminary injunction hearing to make factual determinations, despite appellant's claim that he introduced the transcript for impeachment purposes. Estate of Sotoa v. Te`o, 8 A.S.R.2d 165.
Testimony of parties who have shown a willingness to perjure themselves by entering into "immigration marriage," with respect to unverifiable event such as whether subsequent sexual relations occurred, is not "clear, convincing, and satisfactory" evidence. Pritchard v. Purcell, 11 A.S.R.2d 16.
Untruthful testimony by petitioner in proceeding for termination of parental rights cast into doubt her testimony concerning her inability to give the natural parents actual notice of the proceeding and their earlier willingness to let their child be raised by her. In re A Minor Child, 11 A.S.R.2d 107.
Case in which an appellate court upheld a trial court's assessment of damages on the basis of testimony by a single interested witness does not support the proposition that a trial court is bound to believe the "best available evidence" when this consists solely of the testimony of a witness whom the court has reason to believe is not telling the truth. R.P. Porter International, Inc., v. Pacific International Engineering, Inc. (Mem.), 12 A.S.R.2d 48.
Where there is no good reason to doubt an eyewitness account the court will not speculate otherwise. Estate of Tuilesu v. Asifoa, 20 A.S.R.2d 60.
In resolving issues of witnesses' credibility, motive, and character, the Appellate Division is limited to the trial court's transcripts and will presume their determinations to be correct, unless clearly erroneous. A.S.C.A. § 43.0801(b). Rocha v. Rocha, 20 A.S.R.2d 63.
The trier of fact may properly approach self‑serving testimony with caution, but there is no requirement that it be disbelieved. The day has long past when interest parties were disqualified as witnesses. Reine v. Taotoai, 25 A.S.R.2d 136.
It is for the trial court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and to judge the credibility of the witnesses. The Appellate Division will not overturn the trial court's resolution of conflicting evidence, when substantial evidence supports its ruling. Reine v. Taotoai, 25 A.S.R.2d 136.
It is the exclusive function of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts. American Samoa Government v. Tauala, 25 A.S.R.2d 179.
§ 7 Opinions and Expert Testimony
It is not necessary to attend mechanical school in order to testify as to damage to car involved in motor vehicle collision. Faatamala v. Haleck, 4 A.S.R. 888.
Visit by one member of court to land that was the subject of litigation, and subsequent report of that judge to other judges, did not constitute impermissible "testimony" by the judge when both counsel had been present at the viewing of the land and no objection had been made. Vaimaona v. Paleafei, 3 A.S.R.2d 92.
When opinion of witness is admitted into evidence, court need not accept opinion as fact but must give it the weight to which the court believes it is entitled. American Samoa Government v. Sale Uo, 4 A.S.R.2d 14.
The testimony of the government's expert may, in some circumstances, include statements made to him by a criminal defendant during the compelled examination, although the witness may testify only about the alleged mental disease or defect and not about "guilt or innocence" (i.e., about whether the defendant would be guilty in the absence of any such disease or defect). A.S.C.A. § 46.1304. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
A criminal defendant who puts his mental capacity at issue may be compelled to submit to an examination by the government's expert, who may testify about his observations and conclusions. A.S.C.A. § 46.1304. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
Regarding a defense of diminished mental capacity, when a mental disease or defect is alleged to have resulted in a criminal defendant's "incapacity to intend" rather than in "insanity," the testimony of the government's expert must be limited to the question of such incapacity and may not be considered by the jury for any other purpose. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
Although a defense of diminished mental capacity is arguably comprehended within the "guilt" phase of a bifurcated trial, the interests in a fair trial and an orderly proceeding may be better served by reserving all evidence of mental disease or defect for the "insanity" phase because a jury is likely to view the evidence as being highly probative of issues other than the criminal defendant's mental state, and a limiting instruction would likely be ineffective. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.1301-46.1302. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
During the first phase of a bifurcated criminal trial involving the defense of diminished mental capacity, the court limited the evidence to whether the defendant is or would be guilty, assuming the absence of any mental disease or defect such as would render him incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, incapable of conforming his conduct to such a standard, or otherwise incapable of having any requisite mental element of the crimes charged or of any lesser-included offenses. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.1301-46.1302. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
During the first phase of a bifurcated criminal trial involving the defense of diminished mental capacity, though necessarily concerned with the defendant's thoughts relevant to the charged offenses, the court limited both parties from addressing such questions by expert testimony from psychiatrists or psychologists or by other evidence calculated to show that defendant did or not have a mental disease or defect. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.1301-46.1302, 46.1304. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
During the "guilt" phase of a bifurcated criminal trial, the government may not make any use of statements made by the defendant to the government's expert witness or of any evidence discovered as a result of such statements that would not ultimately have been discovered had the statements not been made, unless the defendant put a fact at issue which could only be effectively addressed by the otherwise-inadmissible evidence and if required in the interest of justice. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.1301-46.1302, 46.1304. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
If the defendant is found guilty of one or more crimes in the first phase of a bifurcated criminal trial involving the defense of diminished mental capacity, the trial will proceed to the second stage, during which the parties may present evidence on whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect which would either support an insanity defense or tend to negate the existence of any requisite mental elements of the crime or crimes. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.1301-46.1302. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
During the second phase of a bifurcated criminal trial involving the defense of diminished mental capacity, the government may use evidence obtained during its expert's examination of the defendant or as a result of such evidence, including but not limited to statements made by the defendant to the expert. A.S.C.A. §§ 46.1301-46.1302, 46.1304. American Samoa Gov't v. Taylor, 19 A.S.R.2d 99.
The trial court did not commit manifest error when it refused to allow a proffered expert to testify in terms of a hypothetical, based upon test results of a person whose qualifications were never properly presented, particularly when the final decision could be a matter of life and death. EW Truck and Equipment Co. v. Coulter, 20 A.S.R.2d 88.
A trial court has broad discretion concerning the admissibility or exclusion of expert testimony. EW Truck and Equipment Co. v. Coulter, 20 A.S.R.2d 88.
A trial court has broad discretion concerning the admissibility or exclusion of expert testimony. Clifton v. Voyager, 31 A.S.R.2d 12.
SEE REAL PROPERTY § 4(7) – HEARSAY
Title to land cannot be evidenced by hearsay or by reputation. Talo v. Tavi, 2 A.S.R. 63.
Original claim of title based on hearsay cannot be accepted by court. Tuiolosega v. Voa, 2 A.S.R. 138.
Where all prosecuting witnesses testified that they had heard that accused trespassed upon land of another, but none had personal knowledge of trespass, accused must be acquitted since such testimony is hearsay and inadmissible. American Samoa v. Simi, 2 A.S.R. 643.
Court cannot find defendant guilty on hearsay evidence of two witnesses who were informed by public health representative that violation had been committed. Government v. Nomura, 2 A.S.R. 658.
Most hearsay evidence is excluded by courts because of unreliability and lack of opportunity to cross examine. Fe’a v. Sisipeni, 4 A.S.R. 320.
Testimony of defendant and her mother that land was given to her father is hearsay. Fe’a v. Sisipeni, 4 A.S.R. 320.
Testimony of witness on clearing of land before his birth is hearsay. Tuia v. Savea, 4 A.S.R. 483.
Testimony of witness concerning planting of land before he arrived at village is hearsay. Tauese v. Maui, 4 A.S.R. 605.
Hearsay evidence is evidence of statement made by other than testifying witness and offered to prove truth of matter stated. Meredith v. Mola, 4 A.S.R. 773.
Statements by parties as to what percentage of automobile damaged in collision was salvageable were hearsay. Faatamala v. Haleck, 4 A.S.R. 888.
“Necessity” is exception to hearsay rule where refusal to admit hearsay statement will cause facts brought out by statement to be lost because person is dead or unavailable, or because assertion is of nature that same person or other sources could not be expected to be obtained. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Declarations of deceased person are admissible against heirs claiming under deceased person, if they could be admissible against deceased, if living. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Testimony of statement of deceased is not hearsay where testimony is not offered to prove truth of statement but as relevant to factual issue necessary to determination of case. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Growing tendency is to relax hearsay rule and uphold exceptions to rule. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Where judge is trier of fact, hearsay rule is considerably relaxed. Ross v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 913.
Deposition of a witness absent from the Territory is admissible as evidence in the High Court provided that the deposition is taken according to applicable rules, the party offering it cannot procure the attendance of the witness by process or other reasonable means, and the opposing party has an opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness. T.C.R.Ev. 804(a)(5), (b)(1). Rakhshan v. Immigration Board, 15 A.S.R.2d 29.
A plea of guilty in a previous criminal prosecution is ordinarily admissible as evidence in a subsequent civil action under the hearsay exception for a party's admissions. Amisone v. Talaeai, 23 A.S.R.2d 52.
Although largely hearsay, oral family history and tradition of occupancy and cultivation is necessary in a communal land-tenure system commonly lacking title documentation and so is admissible in evidence for establishing title to a parcel of land. Toilolo v. Poti, 23 A.S.R.2d 130.
Under the hearsay-rule exception for records of regularly conducted activity, any writing made as a record of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses may be admitted as evidence of those matters if the writing: (a) was made at or near the time of the acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses recorded; (b) was made by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge; (c) is kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and (d) was made as the regular practice of that activity. T.C.R.Ev. 803(6). Amerika Samoa Bank v. Groves, 24 A.S.R.2d 77.
While hearsay evidence of family histories and traditions is admissible in communal land disputes, such evidence must always be viewed with caution. Afemata v. Pasa, 25 A.S.R.2d 132.
§ 9 Authentication and Identification
Notarization serves to assure the authenticity and validity of signatory's assent to a document, and there is a strong presumption that a notarized signature is valid. Mailo v. Soane, 4 A.S.R.2d 140.
Notarization of defendant's alleged signature on a deed, together with similarity of some characters in the signature to undisputed specimens of defendant's handwriting, was evidence that could not be overcome by defendant's assertion that the signature on the deed was forged. Mailo v. Soane, 4 A.S.R.2d 140.
Presumption of a document's validity was not overcome by evidence that a signature on the document was forged when the person whose signature was allegedly forged was available as a witness but not called by the party asserting the forgery. Satele v. Uiagalelei, 6 A.S.R.2d 143.
That territorial registrar's office had abandoned its former practice of using unsworn certificates rather than notarized affidavits as evidence of posting, and that the new practice was more desirable, did not render the former practice illegal. Meafua v. Taliu (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 74.
Even if territorial registrar had expressed a legal opinion on whether procedure followed by former registrar would render a registration invalid, this would be a question of law on which the court must make its own judgment. Meafua v. Taliu (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 74.
Objection to court's finding that the signature on a deed was not a forgery, where the objecting party had judicially admitted that he signed the deed, had had every opportunity to examine the document before trial, and had even appended it to his complaint as Exhibit A, but had testified for the first time at trial that he had not signed the document after all, was without merit. Vaimaona v. Tuitasi (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 76.
It is not necessary that evidence be accompanied by an affirmative stipulation with respect to its accuracy. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 18 A.S.R.2d 14.
Handwriting comparison by the trier of fact is a recognized means of authenticating documents. 28 U.S.C. § 1731; T.C.R.Ev. 901(a), (b)(3). Amerika Samoa Bank v. Groves, 24 A.S.R.2d 77.
§ 10 Contents of Writings, Recordings & Photographs
SEE AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT § 7 – PUBLIC RECORDS
In resolving dispute over ownership of land, court will consider evidence of who was using land in absence of written record of title. Satele v. Afoa, 1 A.S.R. 424.
Where no written record exists revealing ownership of land, the best evidence of such ownership is that which shows who has been using land for the past 20 years under claim of right and without objection by other parties. Satele v. Afoa, 1 A.S.R. 467.
Document containing family history was admissible into evidence because it was over thirty years old, thus establishing its authenticity by age and because it was corroborated by unimpeached eye witness. Malaeola v. Nu’u, 2 A.S.R. 549.
Recordation of a genuine copy of a deed is permitted under certain circumstances, as being similar to the evidentiary admission of a copy of an instrument as an exception to the best evidence rule. R.O.E. 1002, 1003, 1004(1). Vaimaona v. Tuitasi, 22 A.S.R.2d 1.
Although duplicates are generally admissible in lieu of originals, genuinely contested authenticity requires production of the original document; however, mere assertions do not create a genuine question as to authenticity. T.C.R.Ev. 1003. Amerika Samoa Bank v. Groves, 24 A.S.R.2d 77.
As the rules of evidence aim at obtaining the best available evidence when the contents of a document are intimately related to governing issues, photocopied duplicates are accurate and so are substantially given the status of originals. T.C.R.Ev. 1003. Amerika Samoa Bank v. Groves, 24 A.S.R.2d 77.
Extrinsic evidence of a document's contents may be presented upon a showing of the practical inability to obtain the document itself. T.C.R.Ev. 1004. Amerika Samoa Bank v. Groves, 24 A.S.R.2d 77.