Statements in publications are generally inadmissible hearsay.{footnote} [2586]  84 ALR 2d 1338 (G).  But see Cal. § 1341 (works on history, science or art and published maps or charts excepted from the hearsay rule).  Cal. § 1341 has been narrowly construed so as to exclude works whose authoritativeness is in unresolved.  [cases]{/footnote}  The "learned treatise" exception admits the contents of a learned treatise relied upon by an expert witness, either on direct or cross-examination.{footnote} [2587]  FRE 803(18); State v. Garrison, 585 P.2d 563 (Ariz. 1978); Darling v. Charleston Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253 (1965), cert. denied 383 U.S. 946 (expert may be impeached with learned treatise whether or not expert relied on it); 60 ALR 2d 77.

Contra Mielke v. Condell Memorial Hospital, 124 Ill. App. 3d 42, 463 N.E.2d 216 (2d Dist. 1984)(expert not allowed to summarize article relied upon for his opinion).{/footnote}  The treatise is generally not admitted into evidence as a whole, although relevant exerpts may be read to the jury.{footnote}Alton v. Kitt, 103 Ill. App. 3d 387, 431 N.E.2d 417 (4th Dist. 1982)(excerpts of Physician’s Desk Reference written by testifying expert could be read);  Check Lewandowski v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co., 146 N.W.2d 505 (Wis. 1966).{/footnote}

The authoritativeness of a publication may be established either through expert testimony or by judicial notice.{footnote}FRE 803(18).{/footnote}

Illustrations and Charts.  It can be awkward and ineffective to attempt to read to the jury an illustration or chart from a learned treatise.  The rule has been read as allowing a chart to be shown to the jury, but not admitted into evidence.{footnote}United States v. Mangan, 575 F.2d 32, 48 (2d Cir. 1978).{/footnote}