I am a victim in a personal injury case. The place I was renting had a loose handrail. I put in a work order and it still was not fixed weeks later. There were 3 exit doors but no handrails on the other two and those other two were defective. I had heard the owner of the property who used some tenants as witness in eviction proceeding etc to lie in order to get those she wanted out, out. I recorded a man who lived on the same property and knew the owner well. In private he told me that the owner would use the practice of using other tenants in court. After I had cement stairs fall on me either because they were not installed properly or because of the loos handrail I decided to ask him the same question but record him. South Carolina only required one person knowing they are being taped so I felt I had the law behind my side. When I asked him didn't you tell me the owner would have other tenants lie in court for her he stated yep that's what I heard. He did not repeat the same thing as before because I asked hi in front of another witness and I believe he felt set up. Can this tape be heard in court and can we subpoena him to testify based on his statement and play the tape then?
Law Venture, don’t listen to someone saying to hurry up and get to the point. You were very concise. You needed to set up the specific lesson or info you were about to impart on people and the other details were necessary to weed out situations where those details did not apply; otherwise, one might assume this rule was appropriate in inapplicable situations (statements, in this case), and be confused. Your lesson was very focused and your wording was clearly carefully chosen. Nice job.
4:05 oh I think I get it, is that because outside of the witness stand they are not under oath to say the truth so they could write down a bunch of lies and then read it off as fact.
I just had hearsay for my class this week and was very confused. This video cleared a lot up and you explained it very well and detailed it nicely thank you!
@@chukwuelokasomadina7494 In the description of this video, there's a link for the objection cheat sheet. Click that, type your info, and click "Get it now." Or you can go to LawVenture.com and simply opt in on the home page. Let me know if you have any other questions!
I've gotten as far as I have I'm my case bc of your content! I'm at an impass however and unsure how to proceed! This hearsay stuff is confusing! I'm in the midst of a Civil matter where the defendant answered the complaint with two of the three points being unrelated to the complaint and unsure if that's hearsay in of it self. Learning curve for sure! Thanks for your videos though!
The wording in the US legislation is clearer than the wording in AU leglislation. Here is how we define it: EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 59 The hearsay rule--exclusion of hearsay evidence (1) Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation.
I never realized how complex defining and presenting examples of hearsay is. I am learning about processing crime and incident scenes for Digital Forensics in my cybersecurity career. My text book mentions hearsay is highly confusing because of all the exceptions to the general rule against hearsay. That is what led me to RU-vid to search "hearsay in law" Unfortunately, I am still confused. ha!
If a declarant was murdered by the defendant in a criminal case, can the person who was told something by the declarant testify as to what the declarant said to them?
I thought heresy was someone on the stand saying what he heard someone else say, and that person is not in the trial and the truth of what is claiming to have been heard can't be proven.
I didn't see any memes, but I came because I've been watching the trial with my partner and we started getting really confused. Its still really confusing but I at least have a much better idea. I couldn't really understand why it wasn't okay to ask a witness what they heard because isn't that literally what a witness is? Once I learned the technical definition it cleared some things up, but I'm still a bit shaky if I'm honest. Can I still be included?
@@ohheyemmi ofcourse. Yes it's kinda confusing. I'm sure even AH lawyer is confused on how to properly use the hearsay. He even objected and hearsay his own question. Lol
i never understood heresay rules when it comes to conversations where the witness was established to be present and part of the conversation.: so say the witness was there between two parties and the lawyer asks what was said between them an the other attorney objects due to heresay… how can you invalidate a present eyewitness?
Hypothetical case: the mother of the defendant sent an incriminating text message to the injured party. Now, the prosecution is using the text message as evidence against the defendant. The defendant's mother has the right to refuse to testify because by law she is qualified as a "witness exempt from the duty to testify". So the witness cannot be cross-examined. Does that mean that the text message introduced as evidence should be dismissed? Sorry for the brief summary. I live in a civil law country and the rules on evidence are not as clear and detailed as in the common law systems.
This is hard to answer because I'm not familiar with your country's Rules of Evidence. My gut reaction is that the incriminating text message should be introduced into evidence under a rationale that is similar to the "Statement Against Interest" exception to hearsay. If the mother is exempting herself from testifying, then she's most likely doing so to benefit the defendant. Therefore, an out-of-court statement made by the mother that hurts the defendant's case should have merit. Plus, it sounds like the defendant could have the opportunity to defeat the text message by having the mother waive her exemption by testifying. All of which seems to be in the best interest of justice.
it seemed to me at one point there was an objections sustained in the Depp trial when the witness made reference to haveing a conversation with a specific person before the witness had even uttered anything from the conversation. provided I am not misstaken as a witness are you supposed to be objected to for mentioning a conversation happened even if you don't attribute specific statements to that conversation. do you cover this sort of thing in witness prep? maybe you could do a video on how to prep a witness what sort of instruction witness are likely to be given ect. if you haven't made such a video already.
Question: How can documentary evidence be submitted in the court, particularly CPS reports? Would the Social Worker have to be in the the court room or a deposition. I want to present this to the court because of false allegations and statements made by teachers and daycare workers that my son sounds like he is being coached or forced to say untrue things. Would my son have to be in the courtroom??
I'm a pro se defendant in a criminal trial actually starting Monday. So hopefully you can respond by then. I think I have this downpat, but I'd like a little clarity on a specific situation. The prosecutor is intending to call a witness who is going to make an assertion of fact that I, the defendant supposedly made that she supposedly overheard me say. So I would be the declarant and she is making this statement as truth of the matter asserted. Would that be an objectionable statement? If not, what is the exception there? I think it's a clear cut case of hearsay. Am I wrong?
I have a question. If a police officer says to me. "Say one more word and your going to jail." And I say another word and he arrests me. Can I use that against the police officer in court in regards to violation of 1st amendment
A person accuses a neighbor of brandishing a gun during a heated encounter. The accusers sibling that witnessed the heated encounter from an obscured perspective backs up the accusers statement. A 3rd party bystander who also witnessed the heated encounter from an obscured perspective states he/she did witness the encounter but did not see a gun. Would the accusers statement be hearsay? Would the siblings statement be hearsay? What would come of the 3rd party bystander’s statement?
I think you need to take the fact pattern a step further by first identifying the out-of-court statement and then identifying who is testifying by using the out-of-court statement
This is really hard to answer without more information. Yes -- you may be called as a witness, which may require a subpoena. And if you're called to testify by a party in opposition to that person you referred to, then most likely your quote of that person would be non hearsay. Check out 5:50 of this video and my other hearsay video for a bit more detail regarding non hearsay.
Hey I was wondering if you could help me out. I live in a place with no adversarial system we are making the change in some states and I am participating in a mock trial as the prosecution. we are accusing a man of murdering his lover for fear she would have told his wife about the affair. We have a witness that says the accused told him that his lover had made this threat. However, when I plan the direct examination of the witness I fear the defense might object to that statement. Since it revolves around the state of mind of the accused and possible plan to murder his lover, could this be considered and exception to 803?
If I'm understanding correctly, then you have a witness that is quoting the defendant who is quoting the victim? If so, then you need to unpack each level of quotes for the statements to be admissible. The defendant's quote (excluding the victim's quote within it) is non-hearsay under a particular provision of 801 (I'll leave the direct citation out so you can check it out haha). The victim's quote should qualify under a particular provision of 804 since the victim is deceased (once you see it, you'll be like "Oh there it is!"). Hope this helps!
why do they strike hearsay on someone quoting themselves? Like at 0:01, 1:36 and 8:56 in this clip for instance: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qrgxK5JYzgo.html
"I give you brief view about what hearsay is, because otherwise the video will be to long" Also you: 1:20 I haven't learned yet what do you wanna teach.
Hey bro Tato chip, Teddy bro asvelt if you have the opportunity to do so I’d appreciate a call back I have some conjecture and suggestions that might help you get to the top of your firm or if your firm is too scandalous, might help you advance your career in general but you should probably talk to me when you have the earliest convenience
Me: someone who's extent of law schooling is pheonix wright games, watching because I live in the discord world and every moderation action is treated like the law. Edit: I'm not even kidding, I have been in some late night calls with mods and admins arguing the legitimacy and relavancy of evidence and such.
You lost me very fast. I'm 26 yrs old and untill Amber Heards case. I've never seen or heard the word used before exept as a name, a joke from well years ago that i just don't remember what the joke was even about. Btw back then for quite some time. I didn't even understand the joke untill it got old and a friend gave in and explained it to me.
Here, let me help you out because your video stinks...." information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor. "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm" the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law. "everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay" An example of heresay...."The court must hear from the person themselves to consider it as evidence. For example, if you are a witness in a trial, you cannot give the following evidence, "My mother told me she saw the accused at 3pm". This is evidence of a statement made out of court and is hearsay."
