Rule against Hearsay and Three of the Major Exceptions to the Rule - Research Paper Example

Rule against Hearsay and Three of the Major Exceptions to the Rule Contents Introduction 3 Rule against Hearsay 3 Need for Hearsay 4 Declarant and Witness 4 Basis for Rules against Hearsay 4 Tests to Expose the Hearsay 5 Hiding the Root-Cause through Hearsay 5 Federal Rules of Evidence 5 What about Hearsay Supporting the Evidence not the Verdict? 6 Exceptions to the Rules against Hearsay 6 Excited Utterances (Black, 1999) 7 Admission of Guilt (Archer, 1986) 7 Declaration against Interest (Cronan, 2002) 7 Conclusion 8 Bibliography 9 Rule against Hearsay and Three of the Major Exceptions to the Rule Introduction This essay will critique the rules against Hearsay that are quite popular in the judiciary law in USA. This rule is applicable to the witnesses taking part in the proceedings of the court. They may present the facts from the observation of others instead of directly presenting the facts from their own experience (Choo, 1996). This practice is totally banned in USA apart from some rare cases. This report will address three such unique cases in which the rule of Hearsay may be relaxed or accepted as applicable in taking lawful decisions. The report has two parts: It will consider various aspects of the rule in detail with criticism in first part while the second part will contain the three cases for which Hearsay is applicable. Rule against Hearsay The rule of Hearsay can be considered as one of the most fundamental rules against evidence. It draws conclusions on the basis of observation made by others. This rule is completely against the direct evidence made by the persons in the case involved in the court. The rule negates the importance of the verdict of the person who is directly involved in the incident reported for claiming the rights in court. Instead, another person presents the facts from his own point of view that cannot be considered as authentic in most of the cases (Graham, 1982). The definition made by researchers for Hearsay is that an out-of-court statement that is used to prove the verdict inside the court. The word ‘out-of-court’ needs some explanation. It contains all the necessary explanations that are not directly part of the court proceedings. These are either the observations of verdicts of others. Need for Hearsay The rule of hearsay might be used by persons to provide evidence to save or enforce punishment against the real evidence. It may be used to manipulate the truth in the favor of the motives of the witness. He may tell the observation of some other person in a sugar-coated way that serves his own purpose or aim. It may be used in those cases in which the Declarant is either unavailable for presenting himself to the court or he is not confident enough to record his statements in front of the jury. Declarant and Witness In normal cases, the purpose of the witness is to provide his statements to help in solving the case under the oath. His statements are based on the direct evidence concluded from his experience, study, or observation. The witness is directly involved in the case. In case of Hearsay, the Declarant lies outside the court. His oath doesn’t have any role in the proceedings of the court. He just feeds his information to another person who plays the role of witness. The witness will present the information based on the feedback from Declarant. This feedback is based on the indirect observation on the part of the witness. Basis for Rules against Hearsay The basis of rules against Hearsay is quite clear. You cannot rely on the person who is quoting the words or observation of others in sensitive cases due to plenty of reasons. The humans are bound to make errors. The witness might forget to tell something that the actual observer said to him. The witness might manipulate the statement to serve his own advantage. The witness might miss something while narrating the actual observation of the Declarant. Tests to Expose the Hearsay Although the Hearsay is not allowed in most of the cases, yet you may judge its sincerity and truthfulness from the following tests. All the assertions made by the witness must be taken under oath. The assertions must be cross-examined after the court proceedings. The assertions must be logically and analytically correct. The assertions must be presented in front of the jury or judge. Hiding the Root-Cause through Hearsay Hearsay presents the witness instead of the Declarant of the observation or the truth. The witness has only a limited set of information that emphasizes on the words of the Declarant. However, it is not necessary that the words of Declarant are enough to complete the charge against somebody. Moreover, the root-case of the problem may be kept hidden by the Declarant deliberately to see what happens in the court proceedings. The witness cannot provide the information that is not told to him, but the missing pieces in puzzles must be found out for reaching a decisive solution on controversial methods. Federal Rules of Evidence Federal rules of evidence clearly describe the conditions to consider and declare the statements in the court as Hearsay. Federal Rules of Evidence have provided the three step procedure to judge whether the statements are Hearsay or not? You must first check whether the statements made by the witness are based on the assertions. The assertions are made by the person outside the court room, quoted directly or indirectly by the witness. Consider the truth of the matter associated in the court in the light of the statements made by the witness. You must be clear about the term “Assertions”. It means the intentional transferring or communications of information based on facts. According to the theories of Federal Rules o Evidence, the assertions might be in the form of written, oral, or con-verbal conduct if it was meant to be the asserted statement. What about Hearsay Supporting the Evidence not the Verdict? In some cases during the case proceedings in the court, it is found that the witnesses might have to use some of the statements from others that are not directly related to the evidence of the crime or incident. The witness might hearsay to support his statements without affecting the verdict. His hearsay is only indirectly applicable that is not quite dangerous. In order to support the Hearsay rule, the witness must state all the facts clearly from his own observation while using the statements and observation of others only for supporting his own created assertions. This rule is applicable in certain cases that allow Hearsay to be applicable. Exceptions to the Rules against Hearsay This is the second part of the essay that covers the three cases in which the rules against the Hearsay are not applicable. These cases are presented as follows. Excited Utterances (Black, 1999) In this case, the victim is under the state of excitement or any state of emotions that can lead to exaggerated actions. Whenever this situation occurs, he goes out of bound with his actions and statements driven by his excitements. He might be crying for help without any obvious reason or may be overly confident in assessing the crime scene. This behavior makes presence of the witness irrelevant in the court proceedings since his observations are all based on emotional disorder. However, as the time between the incident and the assertions made in the court increases, the justifications presented by the witness might become more sensible. Still there is risk that while uttering the statements, he may be aroused by the same emotional feelings. In some cases, the time period between the incident and the statements made in court hardly matter. Since people are so much emotionally attached with events that they utter the same feelings time and again. Admission of Guilt (Archer, 1986) The statements that involve the feelings of guilt on part of the Declarant don’t require the presence of the guilt party. These are the conditions in which the person is self-incriminating. The statements declaring someone guilty don’t require any convincing evidence since the words of the witness are already giving the proof of the words of the Declarant. In this case, everything is smooth without any ambiguity. The witness is exposing the crime on behalf of the Declarant whose presence is simply irrelevant. Declaration against Interest (Cronan, 2002) There are some statements that are quoted to incriminate or prove the Declarant to be guilty of something. The statements of the witness might be very crucial in this regard. In this case, the presence of the Declarant is strictly against the favor of the court proceedings and in favor of the witness. The witness might quote the words from Declarant that could prove him liable for criminal acts. In most of the cases, such assertions are considered to be right since the Declarant is not involved in the court matter. His absence is duly utilized by is friend in the court by uttering the guilt of crime against him. Conclusion This report considers the rules against Hearsay in USA that rule out the authenticity of the words quoted by the witness on behalf of the Declarant. The report sheds some light on various aspects of the rule. The dimensions and cases of the rules are considered in detail. The report also addresses different cases in which the involvement of the Declarant is either immaterial or has to be negated for reaching the conclusive decision in the case of the court. These cases provide exceptions to the hearsay rule. Bibliography Archer, J. A. (1986). Prior Consistent Statements: Temporal Admissibility Standard Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(1)(B). Fordham L. Rev. , HeinOnline. Black, H. C. (1999). Blacks law dictionary. West Publishing Company. Choo, A. L.-T.-T. (1996). Hearsay and confrontation in criminal trials. Clarendon Press. Cronan, J. P. (2002). Do Statements against Interests Exist-A Critique of the Reliability of Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (b)(3) and a Proposed Reformulation. Seton Hall. L. Rev. , HeinOnline. Graham, M. H. (1982). Stickperson Hearsay: A Simplified Approach to Understanding the Rule Against Hearsay. U. Ill. L. Rev. , HeinOnline. Read More