Let's discuss what is Hearsay evidence

[Robert W]

Hearsay is not as well understood as one might think it is. I want to present hearsay as spoken by Legal scholars. We can take this on once you read all of the explanation. This came up due to the court cases against trump alleging he sexually assaulted a woman. She had only one witness according to her own testimony. It was Trump. So they compete against each other. A court is not there to pick sides. It is there to discover if either side is being truthful in effect. This has to be a purpose of Hearsay laws in effect. To try to guarantee a truth is included in the finding of facts.
So after you learn what it is, why not get the ball rolling and tell us why you do or do not agree with the scholars.

Loading…

www.americanbar.org

 

[d0gbreath]

It's when a witness testifies that so-and-so told me.

 

[Meister]

Just for clarification, how many years between the purported crime and when she came forward with the allegation?

 

[BackAgain]

It's when a witness testifies that so-and-so told me.

No. That’s the common misperception.

Hearsay is actually defined as an “out of court statement” (offered in a court at trial) which is offered for the proof of the matter asserted.

What the rule prohibits is a witness testifying as to what some other alleged witness claimed to have seen or heard. Why? Because that other person isn’t there to be cross examined.

However, if a witness on the stand testifies that he heard the defendant state, “I’m gonna shoot you, you motherfucker,” that doesn’t come under the rule against hearsay. It overcomes some issue of reliability by being good evidence of the prior intent of the accused.

Among other things, it isn’t used to prove the fact that he said it. It’s used to demonstrate what his mental state was at the time.

The rule comes with a variety of exceptions and some “apparent” hearsay isn’t qualified as actual hearsay, anyway.

 

[Robert W]

Just for clarification, how many years between the purported crime and when she came forward with the allegation?

In the area of 30 years into the past. Her testimony was she told one woman the same day and another woman several days later I believe is the testimony.

 

[jwoodie]

Your commentary is worthless, and your reference is irrelevant. Other than that, good post.

 

[Robert W]

Your commentary is worthless, and your reference is irrelevant. Other than that, good post.

I will ask the judges who post on this. Is he honest? Did you find the commentary worthless and do you believe this issue is irrelevant?

 

[jwoodie]

Hearsay is not as well understood as one might think it is. I want to present hearsay as spoken by Legal scholars. We can take this on once you read all of the explanation. This came up due to the court cases against trump alleging he sexually assaulted a woman. She had only one witness according to her own testimony. It was Trump. So they compete against each other. A court is not there to pick sides. It is there to discover if either side is being truthful in effect. This has to be a purpose of Hearsay laws in effect. To try to guarantee a truth is included in the finding of facts.
So after you learn what it is, why not get the ball rolling and tell us why you do or do not agree with the scholars.

Loading…

www.americanbar.org

If you have a point to make about Trump, why don't you spit it out?

 

[surada]

In the area of 30 years into the past. Her testimony was she told one woman the same day and another woman several days later I believe is the testimony.

You're not a lawyer. There's something called the outcry witness..

 

[BackAgain]

The point about any alleged outcry witness is clear. If the complainant says that “about 20 years ago, the defendant committed a criminal sexually-related act against me” it can lend some support to this recent claim IF the complainant said it at about the time shortly after the incident.

So the person (whomever it may have been) to whom the complainant made that “prompt outcry” isn’t barred by the rule against hearsay since the testimony is not offered to prove the claim of “rape” or “sexual abuse.” Instead, it is offered to prove that it wasn’t merely said some 20 years later for the first time.

How much evidentiary value a jury places on that “prompt outcry” evidence is for them to decide. But the point is: it is not hearsay or (if it considered hearsay) it comes into evidence anyway as an exception to the rule.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In the area of 30 years into the past. Her testimony was she told one woman the same day and another woman several days later I believe is the testimony.

The statemen "I was raped by Donald Trump" isn't offered as evidence of a rape but as evidence of Carroll's state of mind. That her statement to her friend was contemporaneous with the act.

The twist come in when the purported victim says, "Don't you remember? 30 years ago, i told you all about it. You are my best friend. You have to remember. This what I told you, blah blah blah. Let me repat it. You remember. Now say it back to me."

 

[toobfreak]

"I was raped by Donald Trump"

No, I was raped by Donald Trump!!!

 

[Meister]

In the area of 30 years into the past. Her testimony was she told one woman the same day and another woman several days later I believe is the testimony.

It must have really bothered her.
I wonder, did those other "women" testify ?