Started By
Message
re: This freeze briarcrest thing is BS
Posted on 7/23/17 at 7:05 pm to Prof
Posted on 7/23/17 at 7:05 pm to Prof
quote:
Incorrect. What I've reported is hearsay as I'm a third party. What the victims themselves say is not hearsay.
The key to whether or not something is hearsay is whether or not you're the witness or just someone the witneds/victim told the story too. Even then not all hearsay is created equal and quite a lot of it is used in the court of law to back up other evidence.
Hey man. What you've been presented with is a legal, textbook definition of the word hearsay. If you find that definition to be insufficient, take it up with the Supreme Court or something.
Hearsay is any statement given outside of the court of law. A victim's personal account of an event given to anyone in any setting outside of the court is still considered hearsay.
3
Posted on 7/23/17 at 7:20 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Hearsay is any statement given outside of the court of law
This is simply not correct. Not all statements made out of court are excluded as hearsay. There are a variety of exceptions such as the business records rule, the excited utterance exception, the statement against interest, just to mention some of the of out of court statements that are not hearsay or exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Moreover, unless the matter is actually in trial, the whole concept of hearsay has no actual application to anything else.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 7:21 pm to Tuscaloosa
That's not exactly true, either. If the victim is on the stand as a witness, then the victim's personal account is not hearsay. If the victim is on the stand testifying about what the defendant told her, that's also not hearsay. If the victim's personal account is not being used by a proponent to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then that's not hearsay. Hearsay is not a blanket term that applies to all out of court statements.
My initial statement was to point out that using the word hearsay to refer to these women's facebook posts is straight up dumb. The term doesn't hold any meaning unless you're referring to a specific piece of testimony given by a witness on the stand. We could get into semantics about how not every statement made out of court is hearsay because, for one, the out of court statement has to be used by a party to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and two, there are plenty of exclusions to the hearsay rule that could apply to any given out of court statement.
But all that is beside the point. Even if you want to stretch the meaning of hearsay to apply to a situation outside of a trial setting, then this would most certainly not be the case in which to use it. The term was initially used in this thread to refer to women who were giving personal accounts of which they claim to have firsthand knowledge. These aren't "I heard rumors that..." kind of statements.
My initial statement was to point out that using the word hearsay to refer to these women's facebook posts is straight up dumb. The term doesn't hold any meaning unless you're referring to a specific piece of testimony given by a witness on the stand. We could get into semantics about how not every statement made out of court is hearsay because, for one, the out of court statement has to be used by a party to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and two, there are plenty of exclusions to the hearsay rule that could apply to any given out of court statement.
But all that is beside the point. Even if you want to stretch the meaning of hearsay to apply to a situation outside of a trial setting, then this would most certainly not be the case in which to use it. The term was initially used in this thread to refer to women who were giving personal accounts of which they claim to have firsthand knowledge. These aren't "I heard rumors that..." kind of statements.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 7:23 pm to Tuscaloosa
I see where you're getting that as it is the first thing wiki addresses but you're missing a big part of it (will bold that portion for emphasis):
Per wiki:
IOW, there's direct testimony from witnesses (not hearsay), However, evidence often comes from out of court and indirectly (so-and-so told me that he/she did x or y happened) from third parties. The courts that accept hearsay testimony often do so to get to the heart of the truth whether that comes from the defendants friends/fam etc. or the victims. If it's an appropriate timeline it is often admitted. Once admitted it's no longer hearsay tho. However good attorneys will argue the credibility of such things and attempt to have it quashed before it's presented.
Not all hearsay evidence makes it into trial. As mentioned by another poster, it's complicated. However, both hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence forms a ginormous chunk of many legal cases. People are convicted on those two things alone ALL the time -- and I don't mean hearsay that is backed by victim testimony but rather hearsay in which no one directly there is around to confirm it.
If you wanna call it hearsay simply because court isn't in session I gotta say I think you're guilty of playing semantics -- most aren't thinking in those terms when hearsay is brought up but rather in terms of it if went to trial what would it be.
Per wiki:
quote:
Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted therein".
IOW, there's direct testimony from witnesses (not hearsay), However, evidence often comes from out of court and indirectly (so-and-so told me that he/she did x or y happened) from third parties. The courts that accept hearsay testimony often do so to get to the heart of the truth whether that comes from the defendants friends/fam etc. or the victims. If it's an appropriate timeline it is often admitted. Once admitted it's no longer hearsay tho. However good attorneys will argue the credibility of such things and attempt to have it quashed before it's presented.
Not all hearsay evidence makes it into trial. As mentioned by another poster, it's complicated. However, both hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence forms a ginormous chunk of many legal cases. People are convicted on those two things alone ALL the time -- and I don't mean hearsay that is backed by victim testimony but rather hearsay in which no one directly there is around to confirm it.
If you wanna call it hearsay simply because court isn't in session I gotta say I think you're guilty of playing semantics -- most aren't thinking in those terms when hearsay is brought up but rather in terms of it if went to trial what would it be.
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 7:30 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News