James Joyner notes another example of the torturing of the language in the Schiavo case out of either blatant politial manipulation or carelessness (or both).
In this case it is the continual statements that the testimony in the court case about Terri’s views on medical treatment was “hearsay”. As James notes: testimony about one’s first-hand conversation with a person isn’t hearsay.
Update: I stand corrected. Steven L., attorney and occassional co-blogger here at PoliBlog comments on this in the comment section.
Actually, it is.
Any statement made outside the court proceeding and not under oath is hearsay. It may be allowed as evidence under a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule, but it is still hearsay.
Comment by Steven L. — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 10:07 am
I stand corrected.
So any testimony, even testimony of a first-hand conversation is hearsay? I thought hearsay was third-party generated information.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 10:17 am
Schiavo Update
Here’s a rounup of today’s post on the Schiavo situation: - Michelle Malkin talks about the “MSM religious bigotry”, and also on the possibility of an autopsy in the matter. - Poliblog talks about the “language and politics” of the…
Trackback by ConservativeOutpost.com — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 10:18 am
Anything said outside testimony within a court (or similar) proceeding under oath is generally hearsay - if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Many hearsay statements can, however, still be used as proper evidence if they are judged to be trustworthy/reliable enough. The courts have generated a number of exclusions and exceptions to the hearsay rule - but being admissible does not mean that the statement is not necessarily hearsay (it just makes it allowable hearsay).
Comment by Steven L. — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 10:56 am
Gotcha.
Here’s a question: let’s say that I was an accountant for Enron and I testified at trial that Ken Lay told me to steal snacks out of the machine for him. Is that hearsay? (I take that it is, but I am trying to get the concept down in my head).
Comment by Steven Taylor — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 12:01 pm
Well, it depends. (HA — lawyers’ first response)
If this was a trial about something else, the statement would probably be excluded for any number of reasons — irrelevant, potential prejudice outweighs usefulness, and it would normally be hearsay.
It might not be hearsay if the trial were over a conspiracy to steal candy. Then the statement would be part of the offense, just like the terms of an oral agreement are part of the suit there.
Otherwise, it might be hearsay, but admissible — if Lay claimed he never spoke with the person or that he said something else, it might be admissible to show a prior inconsistent statement, an admission against (his own) interest, or to attack his credibility on that issue.
It might also meet other exceptions and be admissible, but it would generally still be counted as hearsay.
Comment by Steven L. — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 4:53 pm
Of course, now my brain hurts.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 5:10 pm
I guess the short way to say it is that just because it is admissible, doesn’t mean that it isn’t hearsay (and vice versa).
Many people “get” the fact that the testimony will be allowed, but believe that that decision (admissibility) changes the statement to “non-hearsay,” but the two questions are separate.
Comment by Steven L. — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 6:27 pm
Man, I need a hobby or something.
Comment by Steven L. — Tuesday, March 29, 2024 @ 6:28 pm