[taxcontrol]

Why would communication between a felon and a priest be treated any different than communication to a neighbor or a family member?

Before you jump all over me, hear me out.

Courts are very particular about evidence. In fact there is a legal rule about hearsay evidence. In short, one person can not say what another person said.

hearsay rule
n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party’s lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her.

Forcing a priest to break the seal of confession automatically creates a hearsay condition - AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE.

[Ransomed]

Why wouldn’t it be hearsay even if the seal of confession didn’t exist? Isn’t it always going to just be two people talking to each other in private? Is there a difference between hearsay in civil cases and criminal cases?

FReegards

[Lurking Libertarian]

Courts are very particular about evidence. In fact there is a legal rule about hearsay evidence. In short, one person can not say what another person said.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. In particular, in a criminal case, the hearsay rule does not bar any witness called by the prosecution from repeating what the defendant said outside of court (otherwise, a confession to the police would never be admitted). Google "statement of a party opponent."

[sourcery]

By definition, it cannot be “hearsay” evidence if all parties to the conversation are available to be called as witnesses in the trial, since both the the speaker and his/her audience can be cross examined and can be asked to verify or deny under oath, in the presence of the jury, the claims regarding who said what to whom.