No, they are not the equivalent of testimony at trial because they are considered hearsay. They can be used as evidence for some purposes, such as to support your self-proving will, but are not admissible at trial unless they fall into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Side not: To qualify as an affidavit, a document must be signed and notarized with a jurat that states that the document was signed under oath and that the affidavit’s identity was known to the notary, and the affidavit must state that the facts stated in the affidavit are true and correct. However, both federal law and at least some states’ laws now allow “unsworn declarations,” signed under penalty of perjury without a notary to be used in place of an affidavit.
Thank you, I was close. However, I don’t understand why an affidavit duly witnessed signed and Notarized and the content is about what they personally observed would be hearsay. Sure, if they heard it from someone else, obviously hearsay. You probably know better - I’m going by personal experience that has nothing to with this lawsuit.