Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, certain statements that qualify as hearsay are nevertheless admissible as exceptions to the hearsay exclusion rule. Some of these exceptions apply regardless of the declarant's availability to testify in court. See F.R.E. 803(1)-(23). [16] Others apply only when the declarant is unavailable to testify at the ...
"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 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.
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
Hearsay in English law; Hearsay in United States law; Confessions; Business records exception; Excited utterance; Dying declaration; Party admission; Ancient documents; Declarations against interest; Present sense impression; Res gestae; Learned treatise; Implied assertion
This category contains articles relating to the principle of hearsay under the law of evidence, including specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. Subcategories This category has only the following subcategory.
A recorded recollection (sometimes referred to as a prior recollection recorded), in the law of evidence, is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows witnesses to testify to the accuracy of a recording or documentation of their own out-of-court statement based on their recollection of the circumstances under which the statement was recorded or documented – even though the witness does ...
This decision was quite novel, for there was very little authority for the proposition that statements of intention qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule. [41] Most hearsay exceptions (then and now) rest on the belief that certain kinds of statements are unlikely to be false even if made without benefit of oath and cross-examination. [42]