Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: maro
No, hearsay is any statement, offered as proof of the matter asserted, made while the declaring is not testifying at he current trial. The out of court statement is hearsay whether it is contained in a document or related by a different witness. Here is the language of the actual rule, Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

66 posted on 11/27/2020 12:43:13 PM PST by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: The Pack Knight

(e)(1) says that it is no longer hearsay if the witness testifies at trial.


74 posted on 11/27/2020 1:17:32 PM PST by maro (MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: The Pack Knight
Here is the language of the actual rule, Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

You seem to ignore the exclusions from hearsay which include the following, covering thing actually said and known personally by the person making the statement under oath as to what they experienced and witnessed:

Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Exclusions from Hearsay

The following definitions apply under this article:

(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

You just cited (c) above, ignored the direct personal sworn statements of (a) and (b) but also ignored (d) 1 A-C, which cover the pertinent to your claims of sworn statements of hearsay in court testimony where the witness may be cross-examined. Why is that if not for obfuscation of the truth of these sworn statements having the status of evidence like any other piece of providential evidence or testimony capable of being entered before a judge in trial.

91 posted on 11/27/2020 11:27:27 PM PST by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplophobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson