6 ms·

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

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/
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  It's embarrassing to be wrong, thanks for the correction. I knew that witnessing a confession was admissible evidence but not that it was an exception to hearsay.

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/

throwaway5752 7y ago
It's embarrassing to be wrong, thanks for the correction. I knew that witnessing a confession was admissible evidence but not that it was an exception to hearsay.