quote:
Legally speaking, hearsay is anything that isn't testified to under oath. A victim giving an account to a police officer, lawyer, social media, etc... is considered hearsay until he or she testifies under oath.

This is an incorrect definition of hearsay. Hearsay is when you testify to what somewhat else said who is not there and unavailable to be cross examined by the other side. It is usually not admissible at trial, but there are exceptions.

An example would be if you testified at trial you knew Freeze was with a hooker because Joe saw him and told you so. Joe can testify to that, not you. Joe has direct knowledge, you do not.

In your example, a victim telling an officer what happened to them, under oath or not, is not hearsay. They are giving testimony of their own direct knowledge.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Tuscaloosa

11x Award Winning SECRant user

Member since Dec 2011

46723 posts

Posted on 7/23/17 at 6:51 pm to paper tiger

quote:
In your example, a victim telling an officer what happened to them, under oath or not, is not hearsay. They are giving testimony of their own direct knowledge.

100% false. A victim's account to an officer is the exact definition of hearsay. It's any statement given outside of court. Typically, "hearsay evidence" (victim statement to officer) isn't even admissible in court without the victim being present.

ETA: It is admissible in a grand jury setting in order to indict, but not in a trial setting.

The guy I mentioned earlier in this thread is how I know that to be true. Girl gave a statement to police, they indicted him & arrested him, she refused to go to court, and he walked because her statement was considered "hearsay" and inadmissible.

This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 6:54 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by TroyTider