Ad
related to: evidence hearsay flowchart
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings, unless one of nearly thirty exemptions or exceptions applies. [1]
"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." [1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as ...
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to evidence law in the United States: Evidence law in the United States – sets forth the areas of contention that generally arise in the presentation of evidence in trial proceedings in the U.S.
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that created one of the most important rules of evidence in American and British courtrooms: an exception to the hearsay rule for statements regarding the intentions of the declarant. [1]
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
For example, in the 1997 Illinois case People vs Holloway, the defendant took the case to appeal on the basis that one of the witnesses to appear at the trial was a hearsay witness: the witness was not present for the incident and neither directly saw or heard the incident. However, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a 1982 Outcry law ...
What was said by the callers in Kearley [3] would now be admissible as direct evidence of the fact that there was a ready market for the supply of drugs from the premises, from which could be inferred an intention by an occupier to supply drugs. The view of the majority in Kearley, [3] in relation to hearsay, has been set aside by the Act."
The reasoning behind the hearsay rule can be seen by comparing the acceptance of direct evidence and hearsay. Direct evidence is given under oath (with potential criminal liability for perjury if the testimony is subsequently proven false), in the presence of the court and jury, and may be cross-examined. In adducing direct evidence (that is ...