Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Hearsay has been a topic on this forum lately. In this episode, Judge Judy allows a witness to testify to hearsay.
A dog bit a boy, and the parents found the dog's owner. Judge J. wanted to know how. The answer was that the dog had bitten another person who told the police, so the police knew who owned the dog. The dad heard this from the police and relayed it to Judy. Pure hearsay, as the defendants brother(?) points out.
Judy allowed it, but not as proof that they dog is a biter. She allowed it as an explanation of how the owner was tracked down, when it was a kid by himself who was bitten and left without getting any of the owner's information.
So, hearsay can sometimes be allowed, but NEVER as proof or any evidence at all of the truth of the statement. In the above case, the hearsay cleared up a question that was not central to the case, but was a necessary detail. Based on the hearsay, the Judge could reasonably conclude that the parents found the dog owner in a legitimate way.
In the recent case of hearsay, the hearsay was presented for no other reason than an attempt to establish the truth of the hearsay statement. That is even more egregious given that the legal body conducting the enquiry had already examined the persons that the hearsay was purported to have originated from. So they had direct evidence available, but chose to present the hearsay instead.
A dog bit a boy, and the parents found the dog's owner. Judge J. wanted to know how. The answer was that the dog had bitten another person who told the police, so the police knew who owned the dog. The dad heard this from the police and relayed it to Judy. Pure hearsay, as the defendants brother(?) points out.
Judy allowed it, but not as proof that they dog is a biter. She allowed it as an explanation of how the owner was tracked down, when it was a kid by himself who was bitten and left without getting any of the owner's information.
So, hearsay can sometimes be allowed, but NEVER as proof or any evidence at all of the truth of the statement. In the above case, the hearsay cleared up a question that was not central to the case, but was a necessary detail. Based on the hearsay, the Judge could reasonably conclude that the parents found the dog owner in a legitimate way.
In the recent case of hearsay, the hearsay was presented for no other reason than an attempt to establish the truth of the hearsay statement. That is even more egregious given that the legal body conducting the enquiry had already examined the persons that the hearsay was purported to have originated from. So they had direct evidence available, but chose to present the hearsay instead.
