Evidence Commons^™

Hearsay In High Definition: Body-Worn Cameras And The Future Of Intimate Partner Violence Prosecutions, Kenechukwu Okocha

Working Papers

Technological advances in documenting police encounters with the public have outpaced evidentiary hearsay rules. Specifically, the rapid adoption of body-worn cameras (BWCs), fueled by racial justice and police reform advocates, has produced previously unavailable, vivid, and timely recordings of IPV victims’ accounts of abuse. Unfortunately, state and federal rules governing hearsay often prevent juries from considering these out-of-court statements. Such restrictions carry particular force in IPV cases, where victims frequently recant or decline to testify at trial due to abuser manipulation or distrust of the criminal justice system.

Courts and legislatures have eased some evidentiary restrictions in IPV cases in …

Understanding “Truth Of The Matter Asserted”, Frank Rosenblatt

Journal Articles

Many people struggle to understand hearsay. It’s not their fault. The hearsay definition is confusing and unhelpful, especially its final phrase: that hearsay is an out-of-court statement1 offered to prove “the truth of the matter asserted” in the statement.2 What does “truth of the matter asserted” mean? The definition’s plain language isn’t much help. This paper shares the basic example that I have found to be most effective in my law school evidence classes to diagnose hearsay.

Say It Once, Say It Twice: Abrogating The Rebuttal Requirement Of The Prior Consistent Statement Hearsay Rule, Natashja Atherton

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) limits the introduction of a witness’s prior statements during court proceedings, even if those statements are consistent with the witness’s in-court testimony. A witness’s previous declarations can only be solicited if (a) the adversarial party directly attacks the witness’s credibility and (b) the offered prior consistent statement directly rebuts the basis of the attack. This Comment refers to these restrictions as the “rebuttal requirement” of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and argues for its revocation to make statements substantially consistent with a witness’s in-court testimony admissible, subject to the other rules of evidence, regardless of whether the witness’s …

The Nyc Office Of Administrative Trials And Hearings: Forty-Five Years Of Delivering Impartial Adjudications And Providing Access To Justice, Asim Rehman

Cardozo Law Review

It was an honor to deliver the 2024 Uri and Caroline Bauer Memorial Lecture at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and to follow in the footsteps of the many legal luminaries who have delivered this lecture before. Given their chosen professions, it may be fair to assume that Uri Bauer was a believer in the rule of law and Caroline Bauer was a believer in government. Accordingly, I would like to talk about those two topics as they relate to the work of the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings (OATH). First, after a general …

Affording Oral Tradition Evidence Due Weight Before The International Court Of Justice, Terrence Neal

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Oral traditions are irreplaceable sources of historical information, particularly with regard to Indigenous Peoples’ histories and cultures. However, when states have submitted oral traditions as evidence of historical practices, events, and circumstances in cases before the International Court of Justice (“Court”), the Court has been reluctant to afford them significant weight. This Article, which is the first detailed study on the Court’s treatment of oral traditions, examines whether the Court is failing to provide them due or appropriate weight. Based on historical, archaeological, and anthropological research, it establishes that oral traditions can be as reliable as written documents for reconstructing …

Murder On The Hearsay Trail, Jeffrey Bellin

Texas A&M Law Review

Judges, lawyers, and law students struggle to apply American evidence law’s most distinctive feature—the hearsay prohibition. The problem is that hearsay is difficult to master and somewhat dull. At the same time, hearsay evidence is ubiquitous and important. Every litigator has a story about a judge’s eccentric hearsay rulings; mine is the trial judge who waved his hand dismissively at hearsay objections, letting witnesses answer on the grounds that “I want to hear it.” And the case law is littered with appellate opinions scolding trial judges for erroneous hearsay rulings while introducing errors of their own.

That is just the …

The Needless Search For A Founding-Era "Hearsay" Definition, Jeffrey Bellin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Modern Confrontation Clause doctrine permits only unconfronted “out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of the founding.” To operationalize this concept, the Supreme Court identifies “testimonial hearsay” as the Clause’s primary concern. Its opinions regularly dive into the historical record to refine what counts as “testimonial” but ignore that record in defining “hearsay.” This omission cannot last. Cases in the lower courts, and one on the Court’s recent docket, concern testimonial but (arguably) non-hearsay statements. And while confrontation jurisprudence is supposed to be tied to founding-era evidence law, the “hearsay” definition, casually referenced …

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Faculty Scholarship

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin

Faculty Scholarship

A child makes an out-of-court statement accusing an adult of abuse. That statement is important proof, but it also presents serious reliability concerns. When deciding whether it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, should a court consider whether the child’s statement is corroborated—whether, for example, there is medical evidence of abuse? More broadly, should courts consider corroboration when deciding whether evidence is reliable enough to be admitted at trial? Judges, rule-makers, and scholars have taken significantly divergent approaches to this question and come to different conclusions.

This Article argues that there is a key problem with using corroboration to evaluate …

The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley

Washington Law Review

For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …

“Rule Of Inclusion" Confusion, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Some rules of evidence are complex. The federal rules governing the admissibility of hearsay statements,' for example, include at least forty different provisions. Numerous judges and scholars have commented on the complexity of the hearsay rules. Not all rules of evidence are complex, however. For example, the federal rules governing the admissibility of character evidence are relatively straightforward: evidence that is offered for the purpose of proving character is inadmissible, subject to a few well-defined exceptions. Despite this relative straightforwardness, many of the federal circuit courts of appeals have overlaid the rules regarding character evidence particularly Rule 404(b)--with unnecessary interpretive …

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

Evidentiary Irony And The Incomplete Rule Of Completeness: A Proposal To Amend Federal Rule Of Evidence 106, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

Faculty Articles

In recent years, there have been many calls and suggestions for a more equitable criminal justice system. Although sometimes overlooked in that dialogue, the fair operation of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a crucial component in ensuring such an equitable system. Unfortunately, the interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 106 in some jurisdictions permits unjust results, particularly for criminal defendants seeking to rely upon the Rule. Rule 106, also known as the “rule of completeness,” is premised upon notions of fundamental fairness and ostensibly permits a party to force its adversary to introduce the remainder of a written or …

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump

Seattle University Law Review

There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …

Can You Hear Me Now: The Impacts Of Prosecutorial Call Monitoring On Defendants' Access To Justice, Hope L. Demer

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Witness: Bringing A Process Perspective To Modern Evidence Law, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

The focal point of the modern trial is the witness. Witnesses are the source of observations, lay and expert opinions, authentication, as well as the conduit through which documentary, physical, and scientific evidence is introduced. Evidence law therefore unsurprisingly concentrates on – or perhaps obsesses over – witnesses. In this Article, we argue that this witness-centered perspective is antiquated and counterproductive. As a historical matter, focusing on witnesses may have made sense when most evidence was the product of individual observation and action. But the modern world frequently features evidence produced through standardized, objective, and even mechanical processes that largely …

Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Hearsay And Abuse: Where Past Is Present, The Hon. Andrea M. Leahy, Jared A. Mclain Esq.

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Excited Utterance Paradox, Steven Baicker-Mckee

Seattle University Law Review

Based on nothing more than John Henry Wigmore’s personal belief that a witness under the throes of excitement is unable to fabricate an untruthful statement, the excited utterance exception allows parties to present out-of-court statements to the jury or judge without any of the safeguards the judicial system uses to promote honest and accurate testimony. This Article collects and examines much of the scientific evidence bearing on Wigmore’s premise and identifies two paradoxical conclusions that undermine the exception. First, the premise itself is unfounded; science absolutely does not support the notion that a witness is incapable of lying while emotionally …

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause (2017), Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This material is a part of a lecture delivered at the Maryland Judicial Center on May 11, 2017. It is an update of previous versions available at the following locations:

2016: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/955/

2012: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/

The material is a series of flowcharts that explain the nuances of hearsay law and the confrontation clause under Maryland law.

The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Using Prior Consistent Statements To Rehabilitate Credibility Or To Prove Substantive Assertions Before And After The 2014 Amendment Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Floralynn Einesman

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) expanded the non-hearsay category of admissible prior consistent statements with FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) to include any statements counsel uses to rehabilitate a declarant’s credibility after that credibility has been attacked. FREV 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) require that a declarant testify and be subjected to cross-examination about the prior consistent statement. Under these rules, the time at which the declarant made the consistent statement and her reason for making it are critical.

When the declarant does not testify, however, under FRE 806 opposing counsel may still attack the declarant’s credibility. Under these circumstances, it is often challenging …

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .

Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to section numbers of L. MCLAIN, …

Lost In Translation? The Difference Between Hearsay Rule's Historical Rationale And Practical Application, Christopher Lloyd Sewrattan

LLM Theses

An examination of the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and current application. The analysis occurs in three steps. In section 1, the historical rationale of the hearsay rule is identified through a reconciliation of competing theories. Section 2 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of the exclusionary hearsay rule. Section 3 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of some categorical hearsay exceptions.

Overall, the thesis finds that the hearsay rules historical rationale has three aspects: concern with the inherent reliability of hearsay evidence, concern with procedural …

Rescued From The Grave And Then Covered With Mud: Justice Scalia And The Unfinished Restoration Of The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Some years before his death, when asked which was his favorite among his opinions, Antonin Scalia named Crawford v. Washington. It was a good choice. Justice Scalia's opinion in Crawford reclaimed the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and restored it to its rightful place as one of the central protections of our criminal justice system. He must have found it particularly satisfying that the opinion achieved this result by focusing on the historical meaning of the text, and that it gained the concurrence of all but two members of the Court, from all ideological positions.

Billy Joel: The Minstrel Testifies Or How The Rules Of Evidence Handcuff The Piano Man, Hon. Richard A. Dollinger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino

Michigan Law Review

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court announced a major change in Confrontation Clause doctrine, abandoning a decades-old framework that focused on the common law principles of hearsay analysis: necessity and reliability. The new doctrine, grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, requires courts to determine whether a particular statement is testimonial. But the Court has struggled to present a coherent definition of the term testimonial. In its subsequent decisions, the Court illustrated that its new Confrontation Clause doctrine could be used to bar forensic evidence, including laboratory test results, if the government failed to produce the …

The Changing Face Of The Rule Against Hearsay In English Law, R. A. Clark

Akron Law Review

The rule against hearsay has always been surrounded by an aura of mystery and has been treated with excessive reverence by many English judges. Traditionally the English courts have been reluctant to allow any development in the exceptions to this exclusionary rule, regarding hearsay evidence as being so dangerous that even where it appears to be of a high probative calibre it should be excluded at all costs. But recent developments, both statutory and common law, have demonstrated a much more relaxed approach to this rule. In civil cases the hearsay rule has been contained in statutory form for some …

Lilly V. Virginia: Silencing The "Firmly Rooted" Hearsay Exception With Regard To An Accomplice's Testimony And Its Rejuvenation Of The Confrontation Clause, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the impact on the confrontation clause of introducing an accomplice's custodial statements which inculpate a defendant. Part II delves into the background of this issue by examining the confrontation clause's origin, the significance of hearsay with respect to the confrontation clause, and important cases in this area. Part III provides a statement of the facts, the procedural history, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lilly. Finally, Part IV analyzes the Lilly decision and its rejuvenation of the confrontation clause.

Back To The Future: Lorraine V. Markel American Insurance Co. And New Findings On The Admissibility Of Electronically Stored Information, Hon. Paul W. Grimm, Michael V. Ziccardi Esq., Alexander W. Major Esq.

Akron Law Review

Imagine the following hypothetical, patterned on an actual case pending in federal court, and you can begin to appreciate why there is a growing awareness of the need to have clear analytical thinking regarding the admissibility of electronically stored information, variously referred to as “ESI,” “digital,” “electronic,” “computer generated,” or “computer stored” evidence in state and federal courts. ConsumerPro is a corporation that provides installment credit to consumers with poor or un-established credit records to enable them to purchase on credit expensive electronic and computer products like flat screen televisions, computers, and entertainment systems. Under their business plan, a purchaser …