| Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary 1,804,797,671 visitors served. |
|
Dictionary/ thesaurus | Medical dictionary | Legal dictionary | Financial dictionary | Acronyms | Idioms | Encyclopedia | Wikipedia encyclopedia | ? |
hearsay |
Also found in: Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia | 0.09 sec. |
|
A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify. In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy. Hearsay comes in many forms. It may be a written or oral statement; it also includes gestures. Essentially anything intended to assert a fact is considered a statement for the purposes of the Hearsay Rule. A nodding of the head may be a silent assertion of the word yes. A witness pointing to a gun may be asserting, "That is the murder weapon." Even silence has been accepted as a statement, as when a passengers' failure to complain was offered to prove that a train car was not too cold (Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 329 Mass. 14, 105 N.E.2d 923 [1952]). Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay. The Federal Rules of Evidence outline the various types of statements that are excluded by the Hearsay Rule, and are thus admissible in court. These exceptions apply to circumstances believed to produce trustworthy assertions. Some hearsay exceptions are based on whether the declarant of the statement is available to testify. For example, a witness who has died is unavailable. A witness who claims some sort of testimonial privilege, such as the Attorney-Client Privilege, is also unavailable to testify, as is the witness who testifies to lack of memory regarding the subject matter, or is too physically or mentally ill to testify. These definitions fall under Rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. There are also situations where hearsay is allowed even though the declarant is available as a witness. These situations are outlined under Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial
Nicole Brown Simpson's Journals: Inadmissible as HearsayDuring the 1995 criminal trial of O. J. Simpson, the prosecution argued that Simpson killed his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the murder was the culmination of a long pattern of Domestic Violence. The prosecution discovered in a safe-deposit box journals that Brown Simpson had written concerning her problems with Simpson. The journals contained graphic language and described episodes of physical violence and threats committed by Simpson. They appeared to be a powerful demonstration of the couple's relationship, yet they were never entered into evidence at the criminal trial, and Simpson was acquitted in the killings of his former wife and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman. The journals were inadmissible because they constituted hearsay evidence. The rules of evidence are generally the same in every state and federal jurisdiction. In California, where Simpson's criminal trial was held, hearsay evidence cannot be admitted unless it meets the requirements of a well-defined exception. Oral hearsay (what one person tells another about a third person) is the same as written hearsay. In her journal Brown Simpson told readers what Simpson did to her. With her death, there was no way for the defense to challenge her memory, perception, and sincerity about what she had written. The rules of evidence view such nonchallengeable out-of-court statements as unreliable when they are intended to prove the truth of the matter they assert—here, that Simpson had beaten Brown Simpson, stalked her, and made her fear for her life. For the same reasons, the journals were not admitted at Simpson's civil trial in 1997, in which he was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Brown Simpson and Goldman. Cross-references
Hearsay Exceptions When the Declarant Is Unavailable to Testify
Further readingsBinder, David F. 2001. Hearsay Handbook. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Cleary, Edward W., ed. 1999. McCormick on Evidence. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Darden, Christopher, with Jess Walter. 1996. In Contempt. New York: HarperCollins. Fenner, G. Michael. 2003. The Hearsay Rule. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Friedman, Richard D. 1998. "Truth and Its Rivals in the Law of Hearsay and Confrontation." Hastings Law Journal 49 (March). Kessel, Gordon Van. 1998. "Hearsay Hazards in the American Criminal Trial: An Adversary-Oriented Approach." Hastings Law Journal 49 (March). Waltz, Jon R., and Roger C. Park. 1999. Evidence: Cases and Materials. 9th ed. New York: Foundation Press. Ziemer, David. 2002. "Hearsay Statements Must Be Considered Individually." Wisconsin Law Journal (October 2). hearsay n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony, when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip. (See: hearsay rule) hearsay noun auditio, evidence from impersonal knowledge, gossip, groundless rumor, indirect evidence, popular report, report, rumor, secondary evidence, seccndhand evidence, unconfirmed account, unconfirmed report, unverified comments, unverified news Associated concepts: admission, ancient writings, business records, declarations against pecuniary interest, declaraaions against penal interest, dying declarations, exceptions to hearsay rules, hearsay evidence, records of past recollection, reputation as to pedigree, res gestae, spontaneous declarations See also: report How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, or visit webmaster's page for free fun content. |
|
| ? Mentioned in | ? References in periodicals archive | |
|---|---|---|
Africa Overland reflects the author's on experience, so is seasoned with more than just heresay. In that absence of legitimate newspapers, during the reign of Louis XVI, newsletters and other channels of information served up a mix of news, rumor, gossip, opinion, and heresay about the royal family -- in much the same way as The Drudge Report and The May Report do today on the internet. |
| Legal Dictionary |
| Free Tools: |
For surfers:
Free toolbar & extensions |
Word of the Day |
Help
For webmasters: Free content | Linking | Lookup box | Double-click lookup | Partner with us |
|---|