Could someone please explain to me how hearsay works? I’m following the Depp/Heard trial, and I’m so confused when one of them gets objected to for explaining something THEY said. I get that you can’t say what someone else told you because you didn’t see or experience it firsthand, but why can’t witnesses share what they themselves said? If you believe someone’s testimony, you’re taking them at their word for everything else that they say happened, so why not what they said, too?
In: 9
If you are explaining something that you, yourself, said to the other party, then the context you are giving (the explanation) was not actually said, otherwise the entire statement (with context) would be part of the body of evidence. Thus, your explanation is beyond what actually happened; your explanation could have been devised after the fact or been completely true at the time of the actual exchange. It’s impossible to tell, so the court can require people adhere only to words that were actually said and actions actually taken.
You actually kind of pointed to the entire basis of the rule: statements made outside of court are considered inherently unreliable precisely because they ARENT testimony: they aren’t made under oath and there was no criminal liability for lying at the time the statement was made.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be the statement of another person. If the statement was an assertion and is being offered at trial as proof of what it asserts, it’s hearsay and inadmissible unless some exception to the hearsay rule applies, such as the statement is against the self interest of the person making it.
The reason a person’s own statements are often admitted is because they can be construed as being offered NOT as evidence of the truth of the statement in question, but as evidence of the state of mind of the person making the statement at that time.
Example:
Examining attorney: and what happened next?
Witness: I told JimBob ‘I just saw you hit that Cletus guy in the mouth
Opposing attorney: Objection. Hearsay.
Examining attorney: Goes to state of mind your honor.
If that statement was being offered as proof that the witness saw JimBob hit Cletus, it would be inadmissible hearsay.
If, instead, the statement is going to show that the witness was upset at the time of making the statement, it’s not being offered as evidence of truth of what the statement asserts, so it may be admissible.
I found some examples of the kind of objections I’m talking about. They are at 8:15 and 10:25. Why isn’t she allowed to share what she said that lead to the dispute/in response to it?
Just wait until you hear about deathbed confessions! You’ve learned that hearsay is very complex and can be difficult to understand. A statement ruled as a deathbed confession can actually “bypass” hearsay rules and be considered a sworn statement in certain circumstances.
The law is kinda cool, and the fact that there are legal rules around what is accepted as Truth is fascinating to me.
“In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may in common law nonetheless be admitted as evidence in criminal law trials because it constituted the last words of a dying person. The rationale is that someone who is dying or believes death to be imminent would have less incentive to fabricate testimony, and as such, the hearsay statement carries with it some reliability.”
Latest Answers