Hearsay Rules and How They Affect Criminal Trials - Essay Example

Hearsay Rules and How They Affect Criminal Trials Hearsay Rules and How They Affect Criminal Trials We live in a highly legalized world where peoplecan file suit against one another for offenses both perceived and real. Under our justice system, evidence must be presented in court in order to prove claims of damage, libel, or oral defamation. The prosecution must present witnesses who can verify such claims and give weight to the situation that has been presented before the court. However, not all information that witnesses know about or heard can be admissible in court. That is because testimonies pertaining to events or utterances that were not personally witnessed by a person can be deemed as hearsay and are normally inadmissible as evidence in court. This is what is commonly known as the hearsay rule. In theory, it is important to prove the validity of hearsay in court because of the unreliability of the human testimony, as they are subject to vested interest, memory flaws, perception, misinterpretation, etc. Therefore, the hearsay law is necessary in order to assess the details or background within which the declarations of a witness are made. The validity of such statements is determined by the tribunal based on a concrete set of rules that govern the rules of evidence. Hearsay can be better understood in definition as “...a statement, other than one made by the declarant, while testifying at trial or a hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. “ (“What is Hearsay?” n.d.”) So hearsay is a repetition of information which was communicated previously by a person other than the one testifying at the moment, and which is currently being used in the court proceeding in order to prove the truthfulness of a statement. There are actually two types of hearsay that need to be defined in order to understand the intricacies of the hearsay law. The first type of hearsay is known as assertion hearsay. When one speaks of the assertion hearsay, it is understood that the evidence is being presented with the purpose of providing the truth of the matter or an imperative fact. In this case, hearsay is only meant to reinforce non-hearsay evidence that has already been presented in court. On the other hand, declarant hearsay is meant to be used only as a method by which the credibility of a witness is presented, as in the case of the presentation of an expert witness (“Hearsay rule: FRE 801,” n.d.). It is important to mention that declarant hearsay is the most common type of hearsay that is easily argued for admission into court records (Jones, 2007). Based on the aforementioned types of hearsay, a judge may, therefore, rule on the admissibility of the hearsay accounts as presented before the court but prior to its presentation to the jury for consideration in the decision-making process. Although it is difficult to get a court to accept hearsay as part of the pool of evidence in an ongoing trial or criminal proceeding, it is not impossible to do so. There are actually quite a number of legal loopholes that can be used in order to get the judge and, in some instances, the jury, to accept hearsay as part of acceptable court evidence. These 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule are openly available to anyone with any interest in discovering the loopholes and the ways to use them. Most of the exceptions, however, can be implemented only if it is proven that the presence of the person who made the statement is not important in court. Some of these exceptions include, but are not limited to, the following (“Hearsay Evidence”, 2012): Business records, including those of a public agency alongside certain public records; Evidence of the absence of a business record or entry; Excited utterances or spontaneous statements; Family records concerning family history; Past recollections recorded; Statements about the declarants present sense impressions; Statements about the declarants then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. It is important to note, however, that there are instances when the courts may rule in favor of the admission of certain evidence that could be perceived as hearsay. In relation to this hearsay evidence it must be proved that (“Hearsay Evidence”, 2012): It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness; It is offered to help prove a material fact; It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence; Its admission would forward the cause of justice; The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence. Although our laws have tried to clearly define the times when hearsay may be admitted into court proceedings, there are still times when its admissibility is questioned and clarification is necessary. Jones (2007) reminds us that it is important to remember that “While under USAM 9-11.232 authorizes the use of hearsay during federal grand jury hearings, hearsay is generally not used in criminal trials, unless the hearsay adheres to the exceptions to the rule.” Therefore, it is not sufficient to assume that since there are at least 30 methods via which hearsay can be admitted into court as evidence, hearsay will always be valid in the eyes of the court. The validity of hearsay will still be based upon the case-to-case basis. The concept upon which the courts will determine the validity of hearsay falls under the so called “residual exceptions”. Based on residual exceptions, the court reserves the power and the right to determine whether or not a statement may be deemed as hearsay and thus admissible in court (Jones, 2007). Any discussion of hearsay exemptions will be incomplete if the “unavailability” of a witness is not thoroughly discussed as well. Hearsay can be implemented when a declarant is required to testify before the courts but refuses to do so. Therefore, hearsay evidence can be declared valid in court if the declarant (“Rules of evidence: Article VIII. Hearsay”, n.d.): (1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of his or her statement; or (2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of his or her statement despite an order of the court to do so; or (3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of his or her statement; or (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or (5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the witness statement has been unable to procure the witness attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the witness attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means. Due to the intricacies of the hearsay rules, there is a clear and present possibility that some evidence that may be declared as hearsay may actually have a direct bearing on the outcome of a case. The validity of a hearsay testimony could actually spell the difference between a “guilty” and “not guilty” verdict. Groscup (2006) explains that the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution allows an accused to confront all witnesses either for or against him or her in a court of law. This is known as the Confrontation Clause and is used when the proceedings in court are adversarial. These testimonies often use out of court testimonies and, therefore, directly fit the description of hearsay evidence. Groscup (2006) further explains that: ... in Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36, 2004), the Supreme Court determined that admission of "testimonial" hearsay is a violation of the Confrontation Clause, specifying prior testimony at a legal proceeding and police interrogations. Courts in the past have considered some hearsay "nontestimonial," and the Supreme Court did not determine what additional forms of hearsay would constitute testimony. Therefore, it would seem that the validity of hearsay testimonies relies heavily on the ability of the jurors to discern and weigh hearsay evidence during the decision-making process. They must be able to discern when a witness has a vested interest in a testimony and what the effects of that may be on his mindset and perception of the prosecution or defendant at the time. It is imperative that the judge and the jury make correct decisions pertaining to the admitted hearsay evidence, as their decisions pertaining to the matter shall be called into question should the case be brought before the appellate court. References Hearsay evidence (2012). Retrieved from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal- procedure/hearsay-evidence.html. Groscup, J. (2006). How does hearsay affect a trial? Judicial Notebook, 37(2). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/jn.aspx Jones, K. (2007). The hearsay rule: how and when it can be used in court. Retrieved from http://voices.yahoo.com/the-hearsay-rule-used-court-154976.html?cat=17 Hearsay rule: FRE 801 (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid31.htm Rules of evidence: Article VIII. Hearsay (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/evid-804.htm What is hearsay? (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/Ask%20our%20Lawyers/hearsay.htm Read More