Explain When Hearsay Can Be Used As Evidence In A Court Of Law (Essay Sample)

Hearsay
Name:
Institution:
Hearsay
Although it may seem self-explanatory, hearsay is the legal term for statements which are offered as evidence during a hearing or trial in attempting to prove the truth of the issues asserted in such statements, which were not made during the hearing or while testifying (Spencer, 2014). Generally, the witness is allowed or attempts to make statements such as “John told me James was in town”, to prove that James was indeed in town, as opposed to “I saw James in town”. The United States does not allow hearsay as evidence unless one of almost thirty exceptions applies to the specific statements made. The hearsay rule, on the other hand, is an analytic rule of evidence which defines hearsay and provides for both exemptions and exceptions from the rule. While there is no all-encompassing definition of the hearsay in the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as an out-if court statement which is introduced to prove the credibility of the statement at hand (Fenner, 2009). In the common law courts, the hearsay rule applies and states that a jury or judge should not be informed of hearsay statements unless they meet specific requirements. However, the rules of admissibility are not as strict in court systems which are based on the civil law system. In such a system, courts, whether featuring a jury or consisting only of judges, have a broad latitude to consider the evidence presented to them. Furthermore, even in the common-law systems the rule only applies to real trials. It is admissible as evidence in a lot more judicial proceedings such as probation hearings, proceedings before administrative bodies, grand jury deliberations and parole revocation hearings.
Generally speaking, a declarant is and individual who composes and signs a statement declaring that the evidence or information he or she has provided is true. When discussing the hearsay rules and exceptions, the word declarant refers to the individual who makes the out-of-court system. For instance, if Jane is on the witness stand and says, “Jimmy told me he was afraid”, Jane is the declarant, not Jimmy. There are exceptions to the Hearsay Rule that may require the declarant to be unavailable. One of them is statements uttered under belief of imminent or impending death and dying declarations. For instance, the statement “King shot me”, made moments before the declarant’s death, is admissible for proving that King indeed committed the murder (Spencer, 2014). The second exception is former testimony, which is evidence given as a witness at another hearing in a different or same proceeding or in a deposition. In such cases hearsay is admissible if the declarant is unavailable, provides that the party against whom the testimony is being given had the chance to cross-examine or question the witness. The third exception is statements against the interests of the declarant. A statement which is contrary to the witness’ proprietary or pecuniary interest, or which subjects him or her to criminal or civil liability, is admissible when the declarant is unavailable for testimony (Malek & Howard, 2010). For instance, the statement, “I have never declared or my tax returns” could lead to criminal tax fraud liability, is admissible against interest.
Testimonial hearsay is inadmissible at a criminal trial because the federal rules of evidence prohibit statements made out of court from being used as evidence in the court. The reason is that statements made out of court are no under oath, a jury or judge cannot observe the demeanor of an individual who makes an utterance outside the courtroom, and the opposing party cannot cross-examine such a person. Out of court utterances hinder the judge’s ability to probe the testimony for inaccuracies brought about by faulty perception, ambiguity, erroneous memory, or insincerity (Malek & Howard, 2010). They are, ...