Hearsay Flashcards
(87 cards)
What is the shorthand definition of hearsay?
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement.
Whether something is hearsay depends on what?
Whether something is hearsay may depend on what it is offered to prove.
FRE 802: The rule against hearsay
Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
- a federal statute
- these rules; or
- other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court
FRE 801(c) definition of 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.
Who is a declarant under FRE 801(b)?
A declarant is the person who made the statement.
What constitutes a statement for hearsay purposes?
an assertion of fact made by a human being.
Can animals and machines be hearsay declarants?
Nope!
Are gestures assertions of fact?
Gestures are typically not an assertion of fact… the person has to intend the gesture to be an assertion of fact in order for it to be one for hearsay purposes. For example, giving a thumbs up or pointing at someone can be assertions of fact and can be hearsay.
Are pictures assertions of fact?
Not typically unless someone is holding a sign in the picture.
5 questions on potential hearsay evidence
1) does the evidence contain a statement?
2) was the statement made outside of court?
3) is the party offering the statement to prove the “truth of the matter asserted”?
4) Does an exception apply?
5) If offered in a criminal case, does the sixth amendment “confrontation clause” limit or preclude the use of the statement?
What are the 4 main categories of hearsay exceptions
1) 801 - exceptions for hearsay statements that are labeled as “not hearsay”
2) 803 - exceptions that are applicable whether or not the hearsay declarant is “available” – except that one of them requires the declarant to be available (803(5) - recorded recollection)
3) 804 - 5 exceptions which require the declarant to be “unavailable” - but one form of unavailability requires the declarant to be available to then testify that they are unavailable.
4) 807 - one residual exception that allows judges to admit a hearsay statement that doesn’t meet the other exceptions.
What are the five requirements for prior inconsistent statements under FRE 801(d)(1)(A)?
1) Declarant must testify at THIS trial, under oath
2) Declarant must be subject to cross examination
3) Prior statement must be inconsistent with trial testimony
4) Prior statement must have been made under penalty of perjury
5) Prior statement must have been made at a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition.
What are the 5 requirements for prior consistent statements under FRE 801(d)(1)(B)?
1) Declarant must testify at THIS trial, under oath
2) Declarant must be subject to cross-examination
3) Prior statement must be consistent with trial testimony
4) Witness/declarant’s credibility must be “attacked”
5) Prior statement must have probative value in rehabilitating the witness’s credibility.
What are the 3 requirements for the hearsay exception for prior identifications under FRE 801(d)(1)(C)?
1) declarant must testify at THIS trial, under oath
2) declarant must be subject to cross examination
3) prior statement must have been an identification.
801(d)(1) vs 613?
613 governs the use of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement for the purpose to impeach a witness’s credibility or to rehabilitate a witness’s credibility. Whereas, prior statements offered using 801(d)(1) are for the purpose of asserting the truth of the content.
Which rule governs opposing party statements exempted from hearsay?
FRE 801(d)(2): every statement by an opposing party is exempted from the hearsay rule
What are elements of 801(d)(2)?
1) you said something (or wrote it, agreed with it, adopted it, authorized it, an agent or employee said ti in the course and scope of their agency or employment, or a co-conspirator said it in furtherance of the conspiracy while it was ongoing)
2) the opposing party offers it in evidence
3) it is admissible against you for its truth.
Can someone adopt a statement through being silent?
Weston-Smith v. Cooley: whether the circumstances show that the lack of denial is so unnatural as to support an inference that the undenied statement is true.
Can parties on the same side of the v. admit statements as opposing party statements if they have conflicting interests?
For it to be an opposing party statement… they need to be on the other side of the v.
Can prosecution admit an out-of-court statement made by one of the multiple defendants in a criminal trial if they use a limiting instruction to make it clear that it is only admissible against the one defendant that made the statement?
No, under Bruton a limiting instruction would be insufficient to protect the other defendants.
Other options would be:
- redact but can’t fundamentally change the statement… if it is too suggestive of a deletion that is still not allowed.
- could sever and do separate trials
- get separate juries but do one trial.
What are the elements of coconspirator statements under 801(d)(2)(E)?
A) Any statement made by any coconspirator is admissible for its truth against all members of the conspiracy as long as:
1) the statement was made while the conspiracy was ongoing and
2) the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
For coconspirator statements under 801(d)(2)(E), does the conspiracy need to be charged in the case? Does the declarant co-conspirator need to be a party?
No & no!
What rule covers present sense impression?
803(1)
What is a present sense impression under 803(1)?
a) statement made at the same time as an event or immediately thereafter
b) statement is limited to description or narration; no analysis allowed