Replies

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.

The only one obfuscating is you, although I think you are doing so unintentionally out of your ignorance of the rule. As I explained to someone else on this thread, 801(d)(1) allows a witness’s out of court statements to be used for a few limited, enumerated purposes:

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: (1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement: (A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; (B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered: (i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or (ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground; or (C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.

You ignored everything after the word “and.” The 801(d)(1) exemption not allow you to offer a witness’s own affidavit or other out of court statements for just any reason. Only for (A) impeachment by use of a prior inconsistent statement, (B) rebuttal of certain kids of impeachment or rehabilitation after impeachment of the witness; or (C) identification of a person the witness perceived earlier.