3 ms·

It is not evidence, it is hearsay. Even if Mattis testified that Trump said it Trump may have witnesses who’d say he didn’t say it. We don’t convict people in

by rpiguy 7y ago

It is not evidence, it is hearsay. Even if Mattis testified that Trump said it Trump may have witnesses who’d say he didn’t say it. We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone.

rpiguy 7y ago
Ahh Hackernews, where you get downvoted advocating for the rule of law. Apologies, comrades.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  I didn't downvote your parent comment, but I was preparing to send you a couple of links that educate you about what hearsay actually is, like https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802, and https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evid... to correct what you mistakenly think hearsay is. In this case, Mattis is a witness and would be called to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination, about statements the president made to him. The president or other witnesses could dispute that, also under oath and subject to perjury charges/cross examination. If they conflict, as they often do, the judge or jury as the case may be decides the case on the merits. It would be hearsay if they called the biographer and asked him about Mattis's statement. Furthermore, hearsay is admissible evidence in a number of exceptions that are described in the links I gave you (including excited utterances or statements against interest which may apply here)
jnwatson 7y ago
The public realm isn’t a legal trial. The standards of evidence are different. We can’t subpoena anyone, as presumably a competent attorney would do to verify Mattis’ claim.
joshuamorton 7y ago
Eyewitness testimony is hearsay. Hearsay is quite often admissible.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  It absolutely is but it’s not sufficient if both sides have credible witnesses. All we have now is an unverified claim in a biography. I am not arguing that Trump didn’t say it, he may have. We just shouldn’t rush to judgement on anything like this regardless of who is President. Let the court do it’s job.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  It isn't, it isn't. Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. It's meant to prevent gossip as evidence.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible) There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).
  - tynpeddler 7y ago
    Hearsay rules are quite complicated and there are many instances where it is allowed.
  - tzs 7y ago
    > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court Close, but that's missing an important piece. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. > If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. If offered to prove that Bob killed someone, that would be hearsay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be admitted, though. There are a whole bunch of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible [1] [2]. That statement would probably be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a "statement against interest" (804(b)(3)) if Bob was not available to testify. It might also be admissible as an "excited utterance" if made right after the killing (803(2)). > It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. This one is a good example to illustrate the "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" part. It's hearsay if offered to prove that Bob murdered some. If offered to prove that Jane knew Bob, it would not be hearsay. [1] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ [2] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/
mcphage 7y ago
> We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone. Who’s getting convicted in this case?

by rpiguy 7y ago

rpiguy 7y ago

Ahh Hackernews, where you get downvoted advocating for the rule of law. Apologies, comrades.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 7y ago
I didn't downvote your parent comment, but I was preparing to send you a couple of links that educate you about what hearsay actually is, like https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802, and https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evid... to correct what you mistakenly think hearsay is. In this case, Mattis is a witness and would be called to testify under oath, under penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination, about statements the president made to him. The president or other witnesses could dispute that, also under oath and subject to perjury charges/cross examination. If they conflict, as they often do, the judge or jury as the case may be decides the case on the merits. It would be hearsay if they called the biographer and asked him about Mattis's statement. Furthermore, hearsay is admissible evidence in a number of exceptions that are described in the links I gave you (including excited utterances or statements against interest which may apply here)

jnwatson 7y ago

The public realm isn’t a legal trial. The standards of evidence are different. We can’t subpoena anyone, as presumably a competent attorney would do to verify Mattis’ claim.

joshuamorton 7y ago

Eyewitness testimony is hearsay. Hearsay is quite often admissible.

rpiguy 7y ago
It absolutely is but it’s not sufficient if both sides have credible witnesses. All we have now is an unverified claim in a biography. I am not arguing that Trump didn’t say it, he may have. We just shouldn’t rush to judgement on anything like this regardless of who is President. Let the court do it’s job.
throwaway5752 7y ago
It isn't, it isn't. Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. It's meant to prevent gossip as evidence.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court. Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible) There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).
- tynpeddler 7y ago
  Hearsay rules are quite complicated and there are many instances where it is allowed.
- tzs 7y ago
  > Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court Close, but that's missing an important piece. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. > If Bob confesses to Jane that he killed someone, and Jane is called in a witness in the criminal trial, that's not hearsay. If offered to prove that Bob killed someone, that would be hearsay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be admitted, though. There are a whole bunch of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible [1] [2]. That statement would probably be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as a "statement against interest" (804(b)(3)) if Bob was not available to testify. It might also be admissible as an "excited utterance" if made right after the killing (803(2)). > It's hearsay if Jack is called because he heard Jane say Bob told her about the murder. This one is a good example to illustrate the "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted" part. It's hearsay if offered to prove that Bob murdered some. If offered to prove that Jane knew Bob, it would not be hearsay. [1] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-803/ [2] https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/ https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/

mcphage 7y ago

> We don’t convict people in this country based on hearsay alone. Who’s getting convicted in this case?