Eh, If the witness is substantially material to the case, I feel like most relevant questions won't be about what somebody else thinks but about what they think.
I would think a lawyer would have known that that is hearsay and would not have brought it in unless he felt that the defense or plaintiff attorney was an idiot
The fact it’s up to the opposing legal team to object leaves an opening unless they’re on their toes. Also, regardless of whether it’s dismissed after, it affects the jury. So just try anything that might help 🤷♂️ There’s no penalty for it
I've stage fright and anxiety so I don't participate that much but yup! can confirm... everytime I've done something of this nature. it feels like an out of body experience. i speak correctly but it doesn't feel like that it's coming from me lol
That’s so accurate. Same with sports. Like, there are some things I can remember (both performance and sports) but most of it is a blur, especially after more time passes - it’s the same with when I get injured
Remember going to a public poetry reading, and whenever I went on stage I just kind of went into a trance and suddenly I was off the stage and back in my seat.
it's something that happens a lot! it reminds me of the Shakespeare Stealer, where the protagonist went through something similar when he performed. it's just a human experience.
@@froggywithaheart I mean, especially knowing you have stage fright, that sounds less like "flow state" (which is what others are describing) and more like depersonalization.
You can tell you’re good at something when the impulses you have are correct, when you don’t need to think things 100% through and get amazing results, that’s how you know you’ve made it
The idea is that if the other party said it, they are there in court and can defend themselves. If the speaker who made the statement isn’t… then it could be impossible to have them refute it; that’s why they need to be there to testify about what they saw or whatever, and not rely upon a game of telephone. It makes a lot of sense actually.
@MikeRafiLawyer I believe 'admissions by party opponent' are simply non-hearsay. They're excluded entirely under 801, rather than admissible as an exception. 'Statements against interest' are an exception to the hearsay rule under 804.
@valkie9781 The "statement by a party opponent" carve out to the hearsay rule that is used all the time in criminal cases. That isn't one of the hard ones.
@@chavvy9074 i think the question base on the word of 3rd person is hard. very hard to ask. and can get shutdown immediately even if you manage to ask that question.
@chavvy9074 I mean the question may very well meet one of the exemptions to hersey though. Who is Dave? Is Dave his client? If so then it's statement made against opposing parties interests, or it may not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and only meant to show present sense impression just to name a couple.
@@normativeits an easy concept to learn and understand but it could potentially be difficult for someone to identify the difference between hearsay and references to already submitted evidence, or be too quick on the gun without thinking it through (ex. an attorney is discussing a conversation that had already been recorded and submitted as evidence, and someone confuses it as hearsay because the attorney is talking about what he heard someone say without directly going back to point it out)
I disagree. I think the vast majority of non-lawyers don’t know what hearsay is. Any sort of hearing said she said is “that’s just hearsay. There’s no evidence.” Yes there is. Testimony in court is evidence. Not everything a witness would say is hearsay.
That’s not necessarily hearsay, hearsay is when the statement being offered is used to prove what’s asserted (TOMA, truth of the matter asserted). You can testify to what you heard someone say for a variety of non-TOMA reasons, like the effect it had on the person who heard it or to explain the subsequent actions someone took after hearing it.
Back when I was in 8th grade my class did a mock trial against another class. I had the role of one of the defense lawyers. At one point the prosecution was cross examining one of my team’s witnesses and asked a question. I don’t remember what the question was, but I stood up and objected. I told the judge I’m not sure what objection this is but I’m pretty sure I need to object. I don’t remember what happened after that, but I think that was my best moment in the mock trial
The advice my mock trial team was given is to just say “objection” if you *know* it isn’t allowed. The judges were all attorneys or judges and they knew all the objections from years of professional experience. The judge would either sustain it lazily or challenge you to actually name the objection. In any case, you’d get points for the effort and the other side would lose points for exposing themself to the objection (the judges would give trial verdicts, but which team won was based on personal performances, to make it fair in case the case wasn’t balanced). Fun fact: I actually thought at first that “hearsay” meant a leading question because I heard it as “here, say…” Felt stupid when I figured that one out…
@@ajl729gaming2In real court, a judge might do some of the work for you. When I judge mock trial, both sides are going to have to show their work. Sometimes mock trial students will surprise you. I had one pull out a nitpicking thing. They had to tell me where it was in the book.
The tricky part is that there are a bunch of exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. Exceptions include "excited utterance" and "admission against interest." An example of the last one would be from "My Cousin Vinnie," when one of the defendants kept saying, "I shot the Clerk? I shot the Clerk!" Because that was an admission against interest, it is an exception to the Hearsay Rule.
The answer to "What did he say?" could absolutely be taken for a reason other than the truth of the matter (e.g., to prove that the statement was uttered)
@@rbdan Well no if it’s hearsay then it will most likely be inadmissible, then you don’t even get to ask the question. Hearsay CAN be admissible if it fits within an enumerated list of exceptions, if it’s not one of the exceptions then you don’t even get to ask the question.
@@Bogster13With respect this is an overly broad statement. Example: Witness Alice testifies Bob said “Charlie is dead,” when Charlie is not in fact dead does not go to the truth of the matter asserted but that Bob thought Charlie was dead at that time. By definition, not hearsay. If Charlie was in fact dead and the statement is being offered to show the truth of the matter asserted (I.e. that Charlie was dead) but Bob is a party opponent (e.g. defendant in a criminal case) this is an exclusion under the rules of evidence and also not hearsay.
@@Bogster13There are plenty of non-TOMA relevant reasons to ask a witness what they heard someone else say, like to illustrate the speaker’s state-of-mind or to lay foundation for someone else’s actions.
Would it not sometimes be relevant to establish someone heard something? For example in a self defense case where you’re establishing why the defendant felt threatened. Especially if the attacker is pleading the fifth.
Heresay isn’t a blanket rule, in that case the defendants lawyer could ask, “why did you feel threatened” and then the defendant would get the chance to answer and a judge would probably find his response although heresay to be relevant. The problem with the question that the lawyer was asking in this video that there’s no way for the witnesses to not answer with heresay. This is why lawyers are important, it’s never that simple
The "state of mind" hearsay exception allows for the admission of statements made by a declarant to prove the effect those statements had on the listener or recipient, rather than the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Still a law student, so not quite sure, but isn't it true that sometimes questions appear to be illiciting hearsay, but aren't? For example, if the witness says "I was so mad at him after we spoke..." the attorney can ask: "what was it he said to you that made you so mad." That would be illiciting an out of court statement that is used to establish the effect on the listener, which is distinct from a statement used for the matter asserted. If so, then wouldn't you need the full question to know if the attorney intends to use it for it's truth?
Each jurisdiction (and even each judge) is a little different, but generally what would happen if an attorney objects “question calls for hearsay” is the opponent will then proffer what the witness is likely to say, and then explain the non-TOMA purpose or applicable exception. In the situation you outlined, it’s so obvious what that non-TOMA purpose is that it’s unlikely to get objected to, unless to ask for a limiting instruction.
The problem with hearsay is that it can't be put under burden of perjury. If someone tells you something, and that thing is incorrect, you didn't perjure cause they told you what you said, and they didn't perjure cause they never swore an oath. So that's why you have to get the person who spoke the information to swear the oath, if you want to bring that information in.
@@dojelnotmyrealname4018but why does that matter? if i say x said y, and they really did, I'm not lying, if they didn't then i would. she screamed: "please help me".. would that need her to testify??
@@ConyTrash With the understanding that I'm not a US lawyer: The problem is that nobody can be held accountable for the third party statement being false. Which means it's easy to bring false information into the courtroom, which defeats the entire purpose of the oath you swear as a witness. There are exceptions to this, such as when the contents of the third party statement aren't relevant to the truth of the matter.
Really good to crush the question before it gets out. As much as the court tries to wrangle the jurors once you hear something it is very very very hard to I hear it. Even asking the question without a reply can plant a suggestion in the jury panels head in your favor.
In mock trial... same deal. It becomes a reflex. You start wanting to hit every issue and end just knee-jerking the bad arguments out of existence. Good man.
They do admit it's unreliable. That's why evidence is a thing. Anyways hearsay isn't eyewitness testimony it's what someone else says is eyewitness testimony. "I saw this" is eyewitness testimony, "Dave said he saw this" is hearsay. There's also speculation: "I think Dave saw this instead"
This is a great example of the 4 levels of competence. 1. Subconscious incompetence (you don't know what you don't know) 2. Conscious incompetence (you now know what you don't know) 3. Conscious competence (you now know, but you have to think about it to do it.) 4. Subconscious competence (you can now do what you have learnt without having to think about it) this video. Can be applied to any sport, trade, profession, or hobby. There is a 5th level, but that's getting into the coaching side of things, so I'll leave it 😊
The objection he'll NEVER make, is about having a trial that is not guaranteed to be a fair one! WHAAAAT?!?! Why have a trial if it's not going to be a fair one?!?!
