1 / 32

CHAP. 3 -- RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

CHAP. 3 -- RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?. P. JANICKE 2011. BASIC OPERATION OF THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY. A WITNESS SHOULD TESTIFY WHAT SHE SAW A WITNESS SHOULD USUALLY NOT TESTIFY TO WHAT ANYONE SAID OR WROTE BEFORE TRIAL

xander-david
Download Presentation

CHAP. 3 -- RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CHAP. 3 -- RESUMED:THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? P. JANICKE 2011

  2. BASIC OPERATION OF THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY • A WITNESS SHOULD TESTIFY WHAT SHE SAW • A WITNESS SHOULD USUALLY NOT TESTIFY TO WHAT ANYONE SAID OR WROTE BEFORE TRIAL • THIS INCLUDES WHAT THE WITNESS HERSELF SAID OR WROTE • A DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED TO TELL US WHAT HAPPENED

  3. MEANING OF HEARSAY • NO TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED CONCERNING ANY CONVERSATION THAT: • CONTAINS A “STATEMENT” [RECITATION OF PRESENT OR PAST FACT] • WAS MADE OUTSIDE THE PRESENT HEARING • IS OFFERED TO HELP PROVE THAT THE FACT STATED IN THE STATEMENT IS TRUE Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  4. RULE 802 SAYS OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS USUALLY CANNOT BE TESTIFIED TO • NOR CAN ANY DOCUMENT CONTAINING A STATEMENT OF FACT BE INTRODUCED, GENERALLY • BUT: SUCH TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENT MIGHT FIT UNDER A HEARSAY EXCEPTION, AND CAN THEN BE ADMITTED Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  5. MOST DOCUMENTS CONTAIN STATEMENTS, AND THEREFORE ARE LIKELY INADMISSIBLE • IF THE ONLY RELEVANCE IS TO ESTABLISH TRUTH OF THE STATEMENTS, THEY CAN’T COME IN • DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTION: THE OTHER SIDE’S DOCUMENTS AREN’T HEARSAY IF OFFERED BY YOU • THEY COME UNDER THE DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTION FOR “ADMISSIONS” BY PARTY OPPONENT Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT HEARSAY IS INADMISSIBLE: A WITNESS CAN TESTIFY WHAT HE OR SOMEONE ELSE SAID (OR WROTE) IF: • THE UTTERANCE FITS A DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTION [R801(d)], OR • THE UTTERANCE FITS AN EXCEPTION [RULES 803, 804] TO THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY EVIDENCE Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  7. TO BE HEARSAY, UTTERANCE MUST CONTAIN A “STATEMENT” • RECITATION OF A PRESENT OR PAST FACT [R 801 (a)] OR OPINION • CALLED “ASSERTION” IN THE RULE • NOT ALL OUT OF COURT UTTERANCES CONTAIN STATEMENTS • PROMISES (“YOU’LL LIKE IT”) • COMMANDS (“GET OUT OF HERE”) • SOME DO • “IT’S SUNNY HERE” • “IT RAINED YESTERDAY” • “I LOVE YOU” Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  8. MOST DOCUMENTS ARE LOADED WITH STATEMENTS AND THUS PRESUMPTIVELY CONTAIN HEARSAY • E.G.: MEMO THAT SAYS: “WE GOT SOME FLOODING” • E.G.: LETTER THAT SAYS: “YOU AND I MET LAST MONTH ON THE SUBJECT OF A MERGER” • ALL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE THOUGHT OF AS PRESUMPTIVELY CONTAINING HEARSAY, AND THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE • MAIN EXCEPTIONS: • OTHER SIDE’S WRITINGS • OPERATIVE FACT DOCUMENTS (CONTRACT; LEASE) Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  9. NOTE: THE SAME FACTS CAN AND SHOULD BE TESTIFIED TO BY A LIVE WITNESS WITH KNOWLEDGE • WITNESS CAN TESTIFY “WE GOT SOME FLOODING” • WITNESS CAN TESTIFY “WE MET ON THE SUBJECT OF A MERGER” THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE HEARSAY RULE • IT’S THE MANNER OF PROOF THAT IS BLOCKED BY THE HEARSAY RULE • WE WANT TO HEAR IT LIVE, AND SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  10. THE PROBLEM OF IMPLIED STATEMENTS • EXAMPLE: TESTIMONY THAT DECLARANT SAID “YES!” AFTER OPENING A LETTER • LITERALLY: NO STATEMENT • DOESN’T ASSERT ANY FACT • IMPLIEDLY: THE UTTERANCE SAYS: “I LIKE WHAT IS IN THIS LETTER.” A STATEMENT Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  11. LEGAL TREATMENT • FOR OUT-OF-COURT WORD UTTERANCES, JUDGE MUST ANALYZE BOTH THE EXPRESS AND IMPLIED SENSES TO SEE IF THERE IS A STATEMENT • FOR CONDUCT, WE IGNORE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSIDER ONLY WHETHER THE ACTOR WAS INTENDING TO NARRATE (e.g., BY SIGN LANGUAGE) Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  12. EXAMPLE: • TESTIMONY: • HE OPENED LETTER • HE THEN JUMPED IN THE AIR • NOT A “STATEMENT” FOR HEARSAY PURPOSES • CAN’T BE KEPT OUT VIA THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY [R802] Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  13. THE SPECIAL RULE FOR CONDUCT -- WHEN IT IS A STATEMENT • IN A FEW RARE INSTANCES, CONDUCT IS REGARDED AS A STATEMENT FOR HEARSAY PURPOSES • ONLY WHEN ACTOR’S PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS DIRECTLY TO NARRATE PRESENT OR PAST FACTS [R 801 (a)] Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  14. CONDUCT AS A STATEMENT: WE MEAN DIRECT SIGN LANGUAGE; NOT SIGNALING OF FEELINGS OR BELIEFS: • NOD OR SHAKE OF HEAD FOR YES OR NO • POINTING TO IDENTIFY A PERSON, PLACE, OR THING • REENACTMENTS • NEARLY ALL OTHER CONDUCT IS NOT PRIMARILY INTENDED TO TELL A STORY, AND IS NOT TREATED AS A “STATEMENT,” EVEN THOUGH LOADED WITH IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  15. EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT • ACTION ON MARINE INSURANCE POLICY • MAIN ISSUE: SEAWORTHINESS OF VESSEL LATER LOST AT SEA • EVIDENCE: TESTIMONY THAT AN EXPERIENCED CAPTAIN INSPECTED THOROUGHLY, THEN TOOK HIS FAMILY ABOARD AND SET SAIL Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  16. FURTHER EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT • WILL PROBATE • MAIN ISSUE: TESTATOR’S SANITY • EVIDENCE: TESTIMONY THAT LOCALS SOMETIMES LAUGHED AT HIM, CHECKED UP ON HIM, WOULD NOT ENGAGE HIM IN ANY SERIOUS ENTERPRISE Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  17. FURTHER EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT (NON-NARRATIVE) • PROMOTING A LIEUTENANT TO CAPTAIN • GIVING AN EMPLOYEE A BONUS • PUTTING PATIENT IN I.C.U. • THROWING WINE IN HIS FACE • AND LEAVING THE RESTAURANT • APPLAUDING AT END OF A CONCERT Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  18. FURTHER EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT (NON-NARRATIVE) • “THE FINGER” [PROBABLY A REQUEST OR SUGGESTION, NOT A STATEMENT] • PILING UP OTHER PERSON’S BELONGINGS IN MIDDLE OF FLOOR OR SIDEWALK • BURNING THE FLAG Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  19. CAN YOU THINK OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT THAT IS A STATEMENT? • [OTHER THAN SIGNING, NODDING HEAD, POINTING, REENACTMENTS] • IT HAS TO BE AN ACTION THAT IS INTENDED TO DIRECTLY STATE SOMETHING ---- • eye contact + [H, C, DoKn, CaSe/CaHe, WKG OK] Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  20. WORDS THAT COLOR CONDUCT ARE TREATED AS PART OF THE CONDUCT • NOT A STATEMENT • MAIN PURPOSE IS NOT TO TELL A STORY, BUT TO GET ON WITH LIFE • EXAMPLE: HANDING OVER CASH, AND SAYING “THIS IS FOR THE JULY RENT” • EXAMPLE: HANDING CAR KEYS, AND SAYING “IT’S IN THE GARAGE” Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  21. RULES OF THUMB • MIXED WORDS AND CONDUCT: • TREAT AS CONDUCT (FIND ACTOR’S PURPOSE; IGNORE IMPLICATIONS) • IF YOU CAN’T DECIDE ACTOR’S INTENTION (WAS SHE SIGNING/NARRATING?): • TREAT AS A NON-STATEMENT Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  22. HANDLING VERY SHORT SETS OF WORDS • “CORONA” ON BEER MUG • “PORSCHE” ON CAR • “PLAZA CLUB RESTAURANT” • LAUNDRY MARK “JAN” • “UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON” ON ENTRANCEWAY • THESE ARE REGARDED AS MERE MARKERS, NOT STATEMENTS • THEREFORE ARE NOT HEARSAY Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  23. PROB. 3A, 3B, CHECK CASE Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  24. “OFFERED TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT” • SOME OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ARE ELICITED AT TRIAL FOR OTHER REASONS, AND ARE THEREFORE NOT HEARSAY Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  25. IMPEACHING A WITNESS • E.G.: PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT • DOES NOT COME IN FOR ITS TRUTH NOTE: IF THE PROPONENT ALSO WANTS IT IN FOR ITS TRUTH, A DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTION OR RULE EXCEPTION HAS TO BE FOUND Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  26. WORDS THAT ARE THEMSELVES AN ELEMENT OF THE CASE • E.G.: FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT • E.G.: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE • E.G.: WARRANTIES • SOMETIMES CALLED “RES GESTAE” • SOMETIMES CALLED WORDS THAT ARE AN OPERATIVE FACT • M-K CALL THIS A “VERBAL ACT” Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  27. PROVING THE LISTENER’S STATE OF MIND THAT IS AN ELEMENT OF THE CASE/DEFENSE • TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “I HAVE A GUN THAT IS POINTED AT YOU” • SELF-DEFENSE REQUIRES PROOF OF ACTOR’S STATE OF MIND • TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT • TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “THESE T.V. SETS ARE STOLEN” • IF THE TRIAL IS FOR RECEIVING, KNOWLEDGE IS AN ELEMENT • CAVEAT: LIMITED OFFER WILL BE ENFORCED! Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  28. TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “THE BRAKES ON YOUR CAR ARE BAD” OFFERED TO SHOW D’S NEGLIGENCE IN DRIVING THE CAR • NEGLIGENCE IS A STATE OF MIND Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  29. TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “THE BRAKES ON MY CAR ARE BAD” OFFERED TO SHOW ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN RIDING IN THE CAR • ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS A STATE OF MIND Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  30. PROB. 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, SINGER, 3K, PACELLI, 3M, BETTS. Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  31. THE HEARSAY QUIZ IN M-K[pp. 182-184] • APPLY THE DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS IN R801(d) IF APPLICABLE • SOME LAWYERS START WITH 801(d) ANALYSIS, TO SAVE TIME • IF YOU FIND IT IN 801(d), IT CAN’T BE HEARSAY • DON’T WORRY ABOUT WHY IT’S OFFERED Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

  32. SEQUENCE • CHECK 801(d) – NOT HEARSAY • IS THE WIT. TESTIFYING TO A STATEMENT? • IS THE TEST. OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE STMT. WAS TRUE? • IF SO, THE TEST. IS BRINGING IN HEARSAY • IS THERE AN APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE? Chap. 3 -- hearsay resumed

More Related