Evidence Commons^™

Evidence-Based Hearsay, Justin Sevier -- Professor Of Litigation

Vanderbilt Law Review

The hearsay rule initially appears straightforward and sensible. It forbids witnesses from repeating secondhand, untested gossip in court, and who among us prefers to resolve legal disputes through untested gossip? Nonetheless, the rule's unpopularity in the legal profession is well-known and far-reaching. It is almost cliche to say that the rule confounds law students, confuses practicing attorneys, and vexes trial judges, who routinely make incorrect calls at trial with respect to hearsay admissibility. The rule fares no better in the halls of legal academia. Although defenses exist, scholars have unleashed a parade of pejoratives at the rule over the years, …

The Confrontation Right Across The Systemic Divide, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

In his notable work, Evidence Law Adrift, Mirjan Damaška identified three pillars of the common law system of determining facts in adjudication, and examined these through a comparative lens: the organisation of the trial court; the phenomenon of temporally compressed trials; and a high degree of control by parties and their counsel. In reviewing the book, I suggested that a strong concept of individual rights was another critical feature of the common law system, especially in its American variant and especially with respect to criminal defendants.

In this essay, I will explore how these four features play out in the …

"Particular Intentions": The Hillmon Case And The Supreme Court, Marianne Wesson

Publications

The case of Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon is one of the most influential decisions in the law of evidence. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1892, it invented an exception to the hearsay rule for statements encompassing the intentions of the declarant. But this exception seems not to rest on any plausible theory of the categorical reliability of such statements. This article suggests that the case turned instead on the Court's attachment to a particular narrative about the events that gave rise to the case, events that produced a corpse of disputed identity. The author's investigations into newspaper …

No Link: The Jury And The Origins Of The Confrontation Right And The Hearsay Rule, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

The rule against hearsay has long been one of the most distinctive elements of the common law of evidence, and indeed— except for recent changes on the civil side in many jurisdictions— of the common law system of trial. Observers have long believed that the rule, like most of the other exclusionary rules of the common law of evidence, is "the child of the jury system". Though Edmund Morgan argued vigorously to the contrary, the received understanding is that the jury's inability to account satisfactorily for the defects of hearsay explains the rule. A famous, and perhaps seminal, expression of …

Evidence In A Different Voice: Some Thoughts On Professor Jonakait's Critique Of A Feminist Approach, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

"My God!": A Feminist Critique Of The Excited Utterance Exception To The Hearsay Rule, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(3): Then Existing Mental, Emotional, Or Physical Condition

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(4): Statements For Purposes Of Medical Diagnosis Or Treatment

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(18): Learned Treatises

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 804(B)(1): Former Testimony

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(1): Present Sense Impression

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(8)(C): Public Records And Reports

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employees' Admissions In New York: Time For A Change, David J. Wallman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

After White V. Illinois: Fundamental Guarantees To A Hollow Right To Confront Witnesses, Patricia W. Bennett

Journal Articles

The thrust of this Article is three-fold: (1) to discuss the historical aspects of the Confrontation Clause and its interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, (2) to show that, with White v. Illinois, the Supreme Court lost its moorings with previous decisions and drifted into treacherous constitutional seas, and (3) to suggest a textual construction of the Confrontation Clause that would be harmonious with the hearsay rule while preserving the rights of the accused to face their actual accusers.

Hearsay Rule, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The hearsay rule is a non constitutional rule of evidence which obtains in one form or another in every jurisdiction in the country. The rule provides that in the absence of explicit exceptions to the contrary, hearsay evidence of a matter in dispute is inadmissible as proof of the matter. Although jurisdictions define "hearsay" in different ways, the various definitions reflect a common principle: evidence that derives its relevance in a case from the belief of a person who is not present in court—and thus not under oath and not subject to cross-examination regarding his credibility—is of questionable probative value.

Prior Consistent Statements, Arthur H. Travers Jr.

Publications

No abstract provided.

Prior Inconsistent Statements As An Exception To The Hearsay Rule: An Analysis Of People V. Johnson, Kenneth Gleason

San Diego Law Review

In February 1964, Edwin Johnson was indicted by the Yolo County Grand Jury for the crime of incest. The twofold basis of the indictment lay in the testimony of his 15-year-old daughter, Elaine, who stated that he had engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with her on January 11, 1964; and in the testimony of his wife, Eleanor, who claimed that she had observed occasions of sex play between her husband and daughter. At trial in January 1967, however, both witnesses denied that defendant had engaged in any illicit sexual relations with Elaine. To negate these denials, the prosecution, …

Use Of Record Of Criminal Conviction In Subsequent Civil Action Arising From The Same Facts As The Prosecution, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The overwhelming majority of courts considering the issue without the aid of pertinent legislation have held that a record of a prior criminal conviction may not be used against a convicted person in subsequent civil proceedings arising from the same facts as the criminal prosecution but to which the state is not a party. It is admissible neither as evidence of the facts underlying it, nor as the basis of an estoppel preventing the convicted party from relitigating those issues which must have been decided against him in the criminal trial for the judge or jury to have found him …

Evidence-Hearsay-Exclusion Of Self-Serving Declarations, John M. Price S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

One of the most venerable of all legal principles is the evidentiary rule excluding hearsay. This rule, which was first espoused by the English courts in the sixteenth century, arose when it became apparent that there was an inherent danger of untrustworthiness in a witness's uncorroborated recital of a prior declaration made outside the courtroom. The courts gave several reasons for regarding hearsay as untrustworthy. First, these statements, offered into evidence for the truth of the matter asserted, were not made under oath. Secondly, objection to such testimony was raised because the trier of fact had no opportunity to pass …

Evidence-Hearsay-Admissbility Of Accident Reports Under The Federal Business Records Act, Thomas G. Dignan Jr.

Michigan Law Review

The United States, as assignee of a civilian seaman's claim, brought an action against the defendant for injuries received when the seaman slipped on a walkway which the defendant had contracted to maintain in good repair. At the trial plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence a report compiled by the seaman's superior, such report being required to accompany the seaman's claim for compensation from the Government. Admission of the report under the Federal Business Records Act was denied, and the Government's case was thereby materially weakened. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict for the defendant. On appeal, held, …

Evidence - Spontaneous Declarations - Statement By Injured Party While On Way To Hospital, James Beatty S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident involving a car, driven by the defendant's decedent, and two oncoming trucks, one passing the other on a three lane highway. Twenty-five minutes after the accident a state police officer arrived and took the driver of the passing truck, who was severely burned and in terrific pain, to the hospital. En route and in response to the officer's inquiry, the driver stated that defendant had caused the accident by swerving to the wrong side of the road. The statement was admitted over defendant's objection that it was hearsay, and verdict was rendered for …

Morgan: Basic Problems Of Evidence, Alfred L. Gausewitz

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Basic Problems of Evidence. By Edmund M. Morgan.

People V. Robinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Where there was prima facie proof of the existence of a conspiracy, testimony concerning a co-conspirator's statements in furtherance of the conspiracy, though made in the absence of defendant, was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Evidence-Admissibility Of Expressions Of Pain And Suffering, Edgar A. Strause S.Ed

Michigan Law Review

Notwithstanding medical achievements, the human being has not yet been immunized from physical injury and the pain customarily attending such injury. This fact coupled with the ill-controlled fury of modem life has led to an enormous amount of personal injury litigation. Such litigation, with rare exceptions, presents an evidentiary feature of pain and suffering of the victim. Most often the problem arises where pain and suffering are an element of the damages, although it may likewise be involved in showing the nature or the extent of the physical injury.

Wigmore On Evidence-A Review, John E. Tracy

Michigan Law Review

In 1887 John Henry Wigmore graduated from Harvard Law School. Only four years later, in 1891, there came from his pen an article in the Harvard Law Review entitled "Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Prodere," which showed to the profession that there had arrived at the bar a writer who was not only a deep student of legal history and knew his law of evidence, but who had no hesitation in smashing images, regardless of how sacredly they had theretofore been worshiped.

Evidence - Admissibility Of Hospital Records As Business Entries, John S. Pennell

Michigan Law Review

Following the report of the Commonwealth Fund Committee, in which they advocated the adoption of a model act to govern the admission of business entries as evidence, a comparatively small number of states have enacted legislation of this kind, either the model act or an act of similar nature. The extent of this comment is to show: (1) in what states hospital records have been held not to be admissible as business entries, the states where there has been no decision on the subject, and the states where the status of the rule is in doubt; (2) the states where …

Evidence-Alienation Of Affections-Wife's Testimony As To Statements Made To Her By Alienated Husband Concerning Defendant

Michigan Law Review

In a suit for alienation of husband's affections, plaintiff testified as to certain statements made by her husband in the absence of the defendant. These statement purported to be repetitions of statements made by the defendant to plaintiff's husband. Defendant objected to the admission of this testimony on the ground that it was hearsay. The court held that the testimony was admissible, not to prove the truth of the facts, words, or conduct embodied in the statements and chargeable to the defendant, but to show the husband's state of mind toward the plaintiff. Richards v. Lorleberg, (App. D. C. …