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.
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
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 American substantive law, it refers to the period of a felony from start-to-end. In American procedural law, it refers to a former exception to the hearsay rule for statements made spontaneously or as part of an act. The English and Canadian version of res gestae is similar, but is still recognized as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule.
Have the judge take judicial notice of the text, if it is sufficiently notable that the average person would know that it is an authority (for example, Gray's Anatomy [1] [2]). Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (18), either party can introduce a learned treatise as evidence, irrespective of whether it is being used to rebut the opposing ...
"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 ...
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 ...
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 ...