Talk:Hearsay in United States law

message: Last 2 videos are unrelated to hearsay evidence. How do we delete them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgordski (talk • contribs) 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: video edits

message: I removed the 'exclusionary rule' example for two reasons.  First, whether something is subject to the United States exclusionary rule does not hinge on it being hearsay.  Both hearsay and non-hearsay are equally subject to the exclusionary rule.  Since this this is a hearsay article, I felt we should stick to the subject at hand.  Second, the example given was incorrect.  The officer heard the cries of help PRIOR to entering the home, not AFTER.  Even if his forced entry to the home violated the constitutional rights of the Defendant and thus invoked the exclusionary rule, that would not exclude the victim's cries of help from evidence. (one of the authors)
I also removed the civil lawsuit example.  In most jurisdictions, the rule of evidence will be the same whether a trial is a civil or criminal trial.  The 'prior consistent statement' example given for the civil trial, would also apply with equal force in a criminal trial. (one of the autors)
Good article, but the sentence "Generally speaking hearsay is a concept that developed in the common law legal tradition in the context of the adversarial system of decision making" seems odd, coming as it does at the very end of the article. Seems like it should appear somewhere near the beginning. - dcljr 19:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: new edits

message: I think the new Supreme Court decision Crawford (cite unknown, but 2004) should also be discussed.  I'm a fledling evidence student (exam on Tue) -- and I think this is a nice overview of hearsay.  Nonetheless, given the right to confrontation embodied in Scalia's decision, it'd be worth adding a paragraph about the Crawford decision.
:SCOTUS opinions
:oral arguments in Crawford v. Washington
:Decision
: -- Dominus 14:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crawford Decision 

message: As far as I know, in France (civil law country), having X say that he heard Y say Z is not accepted as a proof that Z is true. It is accepted as corroboratory evidence (i.e. something that adds to the credibility of something that is proved otherwise) but not as as a proof of Z. The logical defense, when faced with such allegations, is to ask why Y was not called as a witness. David.Monniaux 12:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference with civil law countries

message: The sentence
:Believing that there is a crime in progress,the officer kicks the front door down and enters the home to discover the perpetrator/homeowner assaulting a partially a victim.
should be fixed; but I'm not sure what the wikipedian who wrote it was trying to say. Pretzelpaws 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: assaulting a partially a victim

message: is this article limited to the US federal rules?  i believe there are some US jurisdictions where a party admission is not considered non-hearsay. Streamless 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  limited to federal rules 

message: Could really use...well...see the title. Eyeball kid 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I wrote an article on Hearsay in English Law - I spent some working out any way that it could be incorporated into this one, but the complexity of dealing with completely different legal approaches (even if ostensibly similar) led me to just writing a fresh one, with appropriate links. Feedback is welcome! Hacienda 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English law 

message: The entry for prior consistent statements might be misleading in that it appears to limit the Federal Rules' definition of non hearsay statements to just prior consistent statements.  The Federal Rules consider prior inconsistent statements non hearsay as well.
jpm
I have made some modifications to the article to try to correct this. Yours, Famspear 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Hearsay 

message: I am too busy with other parts of WP to fix it, but I want to set this out so perhaps a nonlawyer can take a stab at it:
*Hearsay is not a proper noun.  Therefore it should NOT be capitalized at every occurrence.
*Same for non-hearsay.
*Ohio v. Roberts was overridden by Crawford v. Washington, so it should not even be mentioned here, or it should be mentioned only in passing. (comment: This is actually incorrect, Crawford only partially overruled Roberts, aspects of the decision pertaining to non-testimonial hearsay and the confrontation clause are still good law) 
*The case names should be italicized.
*The examples given are unnecessarily wordy.
*The entire article is so disorganized and poorly written that it appears to have been based upon the outline of a C student at a fourth-tier law school. --Coolcaesar 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the article needs a major rewrite.  The latter comment doesn't belong on this page.  Plus it makes you sound like a real jerk.--Lindsay (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problems with this article 

message: The grammar and capitalization really needs to be fixed.  For starters, it's always the "hearsay rule," not the "Hearsay Rule!" --Coolcaesar 10:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar claims 

message: I believe this article meets all of the criterion for B-class status. No comment on importance. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: Third paragraph reads "Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of another person's statement, as equivalent to testimony by the witness to the fact.  Unless the second person is brought to testify in court where they may be placed under oath and cross-examined."  My question is about the second sentence in the paragraph.  Under Federal Rules of Evidence 801, California Evidence Code 1200, New Jersey and  some other State's hearsay statutes, the extrajudicial statement remains hearsay whether or not the hearsay declarant (the "second person") subsequently becomes a witness at the trial and gives testimony about the statement.
I'd very much appreciate knowing what States hold true for the article's assertion.  I'm not a lawyer; I was a paralegal eons ago.  Any information would be appreciated.G Louis P (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, of article 

message: The definition of hearsay used in this article is incorrect (as far as I know) in all US jurisdictions. Whether a statement is hearsay does not turn on the personal knowledge of the witness; rather, it turns on: 1) whether the statement was made out of court; and, 2) whether it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  Take a look at the other Wikipedia page on hearsay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay 64.207.15.130 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Just traced it. Turns out it's from this bizarre edit by User:Nwbeeson on 12 November 2011.  Looks like Nwbeeson has no idea what is hearsay and ended up conflating it with several other evidentiary concepts, notably foundation.  I suggest reverting the intro back to the version prior to 12 November 2011 which is much more accurate and clearer. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Sheesh! I see that I have edited this article since that goofy crap was inserted -- and I had never noticed that stuff, either. Have at it Coolcaesar (unless you just want to delete the nonsense and replace it with a brief explanation of what hearsay actually is). Famspear (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Hearsay 

message: The current production of nonsense, by lawyers who should know better, tells me people will come here trying to figure this out. THE MAIN POINT THAT IS LEFT OUT OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT NEEDS CLARIFYING is really succinctly stated at https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/objection-hearsay-what-is-the-hearsay-rule-and-what-are-the-exceptions-to-it . Here is the point: people are claiming/denying hearsay because they think it relates to the veracity of someone who overhears Trump on the phone. That’s totally wrong. As is explained in that legalzoom link, that’s confusing admissible with credible. If Trump’s words were contrary to his own interests (such as openly discussing bribery) then it’s patently NOT hearsay. Was Holmes lying? Perhaps— but that’s a question of credibility. If another person gives corroborating testimony then that may (and no doubt will) affect credibility. But claiming hearsay is a total smokescreen. NOT because the guy was at the table and heard it with their own ears. THAT doesn’t rule out hearsay. It’s because it’s Trump’s confession of a crime. This distinction should be in the article, using the legalzoom ref. Roricka (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of hearsay in Trump impeachment