of the statements contained in those records under the ancient-documents exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(8); Patterson, 277 F.3d at 713. Fuqua has not raised a single legitimate question as to the records’ trustworthiness, especially in light of the low threshold for authentication. 2. City of Baltimore Police Department Report Fuqua also objects to the admissibility of the police report, not out of any concern over authenticity, but because “statements within the report of what witnesses may have said to the officer are ‘hearsay within hearsay ” that must be excluded. Opp. 22. It is true that third-party statements in a police report, if not subject to another exception, are inadmissible hearsay. See United States v. Burruss, 418 F.2d 677, 678 (4th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). It is just as true, however, that an
holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay holding that police report of witnesss statement was inadmissible because witness had not adopted report as accurate when matter was fresh in his memory