Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be a premeditated falsehood. Compared to present sense impression, excited utterance is broader in scope for permitting a longer time lapse between event and statement, and a wider range of content in the statement.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence [FRE 803(1)], [1] a statement of present sense impression is an exception to the prohibition on use of hearsay as evidence at a trial or hearing, and is therefore admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself (i.e. to prove that it was in fact cold at the time the person was speaking, or to prove that ...
A prior consistent statement is not a hearsay exception; the FRE specifically define it as non-hearsay. A prior consistent statement is admissible: to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated a statement, for instance, during her testimony at trial; the witness testifies at the present trial; and
There were certain recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, but the Dearest Alvina letter did not seem to qualify for any of them. The insurance companies’ lawyers could do no better than to argue that it was a business record; there was such an exception to the hearsay rule, but a love letter certainly did not satisfy its requirements. [28]
This statement would be hearsay. Unless the attorney can show that this statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, the factfinder (the judge or jury) may not consider Monica's statement (this particular statement, however, would likely be admissible because of the "excited utterance" and "present sense impression" exceptions).
In United States law, a declaration (or statement) against interest is an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true. For example, if a ...
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.
"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 ...