Talk:Hearsay

message: As this is a multijurisdictional article, with subheadings for different countries, I believe the edits are more appropriate in the United States section.  IMHO, the lede no longer reflects a worldwide overview and should be reverted to its prior version, but have asked Amy2019 to relocate her (extensive) work to the US law section instead. Oblivy (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: US law cites and references

message: In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to say this: the exclusionary rule of hearsay itself is usually stated unequivocally: hearsay is inadmissible. However, the exceptions are numerous. There is fairly little hearsay evidence actually remaining not covered by any exception - especially when you add the residual exception - that anyone would ever have and seek to admit. Though the exceptions are many, not few, as Kingdon accurately states,  the rule is far from dead, and to talk about it in such a way would be inaccurate. Often, we do see exceptions swallow the rule, but it hasn't been that way with hearsay. The rule is still alive, the objection is still frequently lodged. The party who seeks to avail himself of any of the many exceptions must meet the foundational requirements thereof. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That all sounds about right.  Feel free to tweak the wording.  On Hearsay in United States law I put in a slightly different wording.  But I didn't have handy a text on evidence, or something else which I could cite as saying "the exceptions cover the majority of cases" or "although the exceptions cover many common cases, courts are often called to rule on blah blah blah" or "it is still an active area of the law, as seen by the fact that the court is hearing Giles v. California in the 2007–2008 term" or whatever nuance seems roughly right without being too verbose. Kingdon (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's necessary unless someone flags it or wants to start an edit war. I am happy with it the way it is. If people are concerned, they'll read this discussion. And then they'll be like, "woah, that guy [Lex] is really verbose." Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit 6/12/2012.  I edited the list of exceptions into a "wiki list" (whatever the formatting is called), but I combined several of the things that seemed similar (examples are as and the phrases "Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates, and Family and Property records" and "Public records and reports, as well as absence of entry in records")  But, I don't have a J.D., so there may be some specific reason for separating such entries from each other.  Someone with a JD please check this.. Jimw338 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: exceptions v. rules

message: I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that this article is of high-importance. It's a highly technical rule and I can't imagine it's of any great interest to non-lawyers. What do others think? ElectricLemon (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a lawyer, so maybe my perspctive on this is unhelpful, I'll preface. The thing is, any U.S.-educated lawyer is going to know about this; if anything, it's least interesting to us. I think it would be of greater interest to non-lawyers who have heard the objection on TV, or in a book, or something (it shows up a lot more often on TV than in a real trial) and want to know, "what's the deal?" This article could be very helpful to people with that kind of curiosity, so I think we owe it to wiki to get it right, by which I mean, accuracy and clarity in this article are a high priority. The subject is probably too banal to be a GA or FA, and that isn't my goal, but hey, you never know... Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point. ElectricLemon (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: The Human Rights Commision Link for Canada is broken. Not sure what should be done  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.185.160 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Link

message: As a U.S. lawyer, I wonder if there shouldn't be a better distinction in this article regarding the "everyday" definition of hearsay and the legal definition of hearsay.  Presently, the article defines hearsay in the context of a court proceeding; however, I believe that the article stops short of fully explaining the legal attibutes of "hearsay."
For example, in US courts, hearsay is any statement made out of court which is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the statement.  (NOTE:  This is correctly definied in the article under the heading "United States.")  Since hearsay is any statement made out of court, then, for instance, a sworn, notarized affidavit is inadmissible in court because the statements contained therein were made outside of the court where the present case is proceeding.  Similarly, prior testimony which was sworn and transcribed is inadmissible hearsay because the statements contained therein were made outstide of the court where the present case is proceeding.  This is true regardless of whether the deponent or affiant has personal knowledge of the event.  Thus, a sworn affidavit by John Smith which reads: "I am John Smith and I will be 22 years old on January 1, 2010" is hearsay if offered for use in a subsequent judicial proceeding.  
I hope that explanation was clear.  In light of that explanation, the general definition of hearsay used in the article seems to be over-simplified, since it defines hearsay strictly in terms of whether the speaker has personal knowledge of the subject about which he is speaking.  In actuality (in US courts), hearsay has nothing to do with whether the speaker has personal knowledge of the events.  
I realize that this might seem, at first, to be a trifling and technical distinction; however, I believe it is one of public interest.  I frequently encouter non-lawyers who misunderstand the legal concept of hearsay.  Most commonly, non-lawyers believe that hearsay is "any statement about which the speaker lacks first-hand knowledge," which is precisely how hearsay is defined in this article.  I believe that the general public would be enlightened to discovery that, in US courts, the legal definition of hearsay actually has nothing to do with whether the speaker has first-hand kowledge of the matter about which he or she is speaking.
Thoughts?  Davisbi (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it what the article already said? "Susan told me Tom was in town" is not admissible to the fact that Tom was in town. However, if this case would be against Susan (for example, Susan is accused of defamation against Tom), then this could be an admissible statement. When Susan testifies herself that she saw Tom in town, her testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. I think the second example (about Suzan) in this case is not perfect, and it is better to replace it with more obvious one. I also added your note that statement by Susan was made outside of the judicial proceeding. Let me know if this looks ok to you now. :-) Innab (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Davisbi, thanks for your input. I made a correcting to the article. However, according to FRE 801, “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. (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: [...] 2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; [...]” So to me it is important difference in purpose of the same statement: the first time it was intended to prove the fact that Tom was out of town (hearsay), but the second time it intended to prove that Susan said defamatory words (not hearsay). Second time withness does not try to "offer in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement", withness only tries to prove the fact that Susan said these words, does not matter if Tom actually was in town or not. (See http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/evidence/section5.php #4) Also, a person being a party to the legal action is not an exception, but the part of definition FRE 801(d)(2). Innab (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearsay Definition 

message: It would be good to mention something about civil law countries as well. I believe that they generally do not have any particular rules concerning hearsay but even so it would be good to mention.MathHisSci (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil law countries 

message: Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is only admissible as evidence if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore cannot be admitted as evidence unless the defendant testifies.[2] This has been cited by James Duane, a law professor at Regent University, as a reason why talking to the government's criminal investigators cannot possibly help a defendant.[3]
Surely the quote in question is trivially proven to be untrue - it is only true if everyone that talks to a government criminal investigator was arrested and ended up in court, before that point talking to them could satisfy them you are not guilty (or they don't have sufficient reason to think you are at least). I know truth is not a criteria for including things here, but unless all lawyers in all situations suggest that their clients never talk at all until reaching court (which I don't think is common - only the recommendation not to say anything until the lawyer is present to protect their interests), then this seems to be undue representation of only one view on the subject, and possibly a fringe view (not being an expert on law I have no idea how common this advice is). --86.161.79.59 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is not always the case. I removed this part of the comment. Innab (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I added a note about it. Also, good explanation here: http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/evidence/section5.php Innab (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hearsay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008141226/http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/EV2009.pdf to http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/EV2009.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi! excuse me, I've added "it:De auditu", please can you say me if is it wrong? 
I'm very sorry if it is. Thank you. --Montag313 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De auditu? 

message: Why is there no translation to Russian?
I find it strange, since there is a translation to Ukranian. Discrimination? 111.220.90.15 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited translation