Ads
related to: difference between affidavit and statement
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Where allowed, such an endorsement gives the document the same weight as an affidavit, per 28 U.S.C. § 1746 [2] The document is called a sworn declaration or sworn statement instead of an affidavit, and the maker is called a "declarant" rather than an "affiant", but other than this difference in terminology, the two are treated identically by ...
Such a statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or containing a verification, meaning it is made under oath on penalty of perjury. It serves as evidence for its veracity and is required ...
Australian law defines a statutory declaration as a written statement declared to be true in the presence of an authorised witness. The Statutory Declarations Act 1959 governs the use of statutory declarations in matters involving the law of the Australian Commonwealth, Australian Capital Territory, and other territories but not including the Northern Territory.
The rationale for a party admission exception to hearsay exclusion can be mostly easily understood by reference to the rationale for the hearsay rule itself. Affidavit evidence consisting of out-of-court statements is not subject to cross-examination. Affidavit evidence is thought to detract from the truth-finding mission of a trial.
The rule excluding hearsay arises from a concern regarding the statement's reliability. Courts have four principal concerns with the reliability of witness statements: the witness may be lying (sincerity risk), the witness may have misunderstood the situation (narration risk), the witness's memory may be wrong (memory risk), and the witness's perception was inaccurate (perception risk). [8]
[citation needed] The examiner must also provide the witness with the opportunity to adopt or reject the previous statement. [1] In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness.