what does offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted mean

The Best Method for Treatment the Hearsay Evidence Rule and Objections

The hearsay evidence rule has come upwardly in every single mock trial example I've seen. It's such an important rule that students in constabulary school spend weeks learning it!Since information technology'll likely testify up in your trial, I'm going to tell yous what you need to know to handle it confidently.

The Hearsay Testify Rule And Why It Exists

The hearsay testify dominion is: Evidence of an out-of-court argument is not open-door if it is being offered for the truth of the matter stated. …And of course there are about a dozen exceptions to the dominion.

The betoken of the hearsay dominion is to brand certain that only reliable testify is used to make up one's mind a case. Evidence is reliable if information technology is coming from a witness in court, who has taken an oath to be truthful. As well, when a witness is on the stand, the credibility of his or her testimony can be tested through cross-exam. We don't have a risk to examination the reliability of something someone said outside of courtroom.

First Pace: Is the Bear witness Hearsay?

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered in court for the truth of the matter stated.

Permit's break this downinto 2 parts.

1. Out-Of-Courtroom Statement

An "out-of-court statement" isanything other than what's being said by a witness on the stand in courtroom. A argument obviously includes things people say, but information technology can also mean something that was written.

two. Offered for the truth of the matter stated

After yous've determined there's an out-of-court argument at event, retrieve nigh whether it'southward being offered for the truth of the matter stated.

Outset by asking yourself what is being said by the person making the out-of-court statement. This is "the matter stated."

And then ask yourselfwhy are y'all (or opposing counsel) isoffering the evidence.Is it being used to provethatwhat the personsaidis true? Or is it being used for some other purpose?

Here are two examples to illustrate the divergence.

Example i: Statement NOT Offered for the Truth of the Matter

The prosecution calls the investigating officer. During the officer'due south straight examination, he testifies that he spoke to an eyewitness who said that she saw the defendant running away from the offense scene.

Is the prosecution really trying to prove that the defendant was running away from the scene of the crime?

Oftentimes, the investigating officer testifies to someone else's out-of-court statement not to testify the truth of the affair, but to explain the officeholder'southward subsequent deportment. And so, if an eyewitness told the officer that the defendant was running abroad from the scene of the law-breaking, the officeholder probably went to go investigate the accused. The out-of-courtroom argument isn't being used for the truth of the matter (that the defendant was running away from the scene), but to show what the officeholder did next (investigate the defendant).

In this example, the "truth of the matter" is that the defendant was running abroad from the scene. But the prosecution is not using the eyewitness'southward statement to evidence that the accused was running abroad from the scene. Rather, the prosecution is using this statement to explicate the officer's subsequent action of investigating the defendant. The statement therefore does not violate the hearsay prove rule.

Instance two: Statement Offered for the Truth of the Matter

Presume that the defendant's defense is that at the time of the crime, he was out of town, on a road trip. The defense wants to innovate GPS records that show that the accused'south vehicle was hundreds of miles away from the crime scene of the at the fourth dimension the criminal offense occurred.

The GPS records land the location of the defendant'due south car at a given time, so information technology is an out-of-courtroom statement. And the defense is offering it for the truth of the matter considering they are using it to testify that the defendant was at a detail location when the crime occurred.

2d Step: If the Evidence is Hearsay, Is There an Applicable Hearsay Exception?

At that place are probably most a dozen hearsay exceptions set out in your Rules of Show, but here are some of the most unremarkably used ones.

one. Admission by a Party Opponent

A hearsay statement fabricated by a political party to the case, offered past the opposing party, is admissible. The statement doesn't necessarily need to be an "admission". For case, under the Simplified Rules of Evidence in California high school mock trial, this exception applies to "whatever statement" made by a party and offered by the opposing party.

In a criminal mock trial example, this exception generally works only for statements made by the defendant and offered by the prosecution. Since "the People" don't make statements, the defense force does not really have an opportunity to accept advantage of this exception to the hearsay evidence dominion.

ii. Business Record Exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule

For this exception to apply, the political party offering the evidence must show 3 things:

i. The Record was Made in the Ordinary Course of Business

This means that the record is one that the business organisation typically makes, and it wasn't specially created for your example. Examples of records made in the ordinary course of business are GPS records, prison cell phone records, and receipts.

2. The Tape was Fabricated at or Near the Time of the Event Being Recorded

An instance is a GPS database that tracks where people are at a certain fourth dimension. The database records locations of people existence tracked within seconds of them being present at a given location.

3. The Sources of Information in the Tape, and the Method of Preparing the Record, Are Trustworthy

In a real trial, you would take testimony from a custodian of records. This is someone from the visitor that makes the records. The person would testify about how the records are made, nearly the sources of information in the records, that the records made in a trustworthy way, and that the events are recorded at/about the fourth dimension they occurred.

In mock trial, yous typically will not have someone from the business to lay that foundation. And so you are left with just your arguments! If you're offer the bear witness, y'all might argue that the manner in which the records (say, cell telephone/GPS records) are fabricated, is mutual knowledge. For example, you could argue that cell phone calls are tracked using cell signals, and that phone companies unremarkably maintain a database of all calls made and received by a particular phone number.

Recap: Two-Pace Assay for Treatment the Hearsay Evidence Dominion

The hearsay evidence rule boils down to 2 steps:

- First Pace: Is the statement hearsay to begin with?
- Second Step: Is there an applicative exception to hearsay?

Nigh always, the first step of the assay depends on whether the statement is beingness offered for the truth of the thing (in which case information technology is hearsay) or whether it is offered for some other purpose.

If –and only if – you actually practice take hearsay evidence, the second step is to consider whether a hearsay exception applies.

Once you empathise these 2 steps and how to utilise them, you'll exist able to make and argue hearsay objections with conviction.

When to Brand a Hearsay Objection

Yous want to object the very first time opposing counsel offers evidence of an out-of-court statement. For the defense, more often than not, this will happen when the prosecution conducts the directly examination of the investigating officeholder.

Listen for questions such as, "What did ___ say?" or "What did __ tell you lot?"

And listen for a witness to give testimony such equally, "___ told me…." or "I heard…"

I recommend making an objection when an out-of-courtroom statement is offered, whether or not the statement is being offered to testify the matter stated. I recommend doing this to test your opponent to make sure they can identify whether something is hearsay or not.

If your opponent can't articulate that evidence is not hearsay when information technology is non offered for the truth of the affair, the mock trial scorers meet that your opponent does not understand the hearsay testify dominion likewise as you practise. Merely in one case y'all've demonstrated this to the scorers, at that place is no need for yous to object every unmarried fourth dimension opposing counsel tries to introduce an out-of-court statement that'due south not offered for the truth of the thing. While lawyers might continue objecting in a real trial, there's not much to gain out of repeatedly objecting after it'southward been shown that your opponent has a express understanding of the hearsay rule. Object only if the out-of-court statement is damaging to your case. Don't object to kick your opponent while they're down. That'due south not cool.

On the other hand, if your opponent does explain that a statement is not hearsay when it's not offered for the truth of the thing, don't object when they offering that kind of evidence again. Y'all know they'll be able to defeat the objection, and you'll badger the judge and your scorers.

Yet, if opposing counsel doesoffer an out-of-court argument for the truth of the matter, then y'all admittedly should object each time. This shows you know the difference between a true hearsay statement and a statement that's not being offered for the truth of the thing. And when evidence is truly hearsay, it is appropriate for you to brand opposing counsel evidence (or at least try to testify) that a hearsay exception applies.

How to Make a Hearsay Objection

Sample objection:

Objection, Your Honour. The witness has testified to hearsay.
Objection. The question calls for hearsay.

Arguing in Support of a Hearsay Objection

When arguing either for or against the objection, yous'll need to keep in mind the ii steps of the hearsay analysis.

Step One: Is in that location hearsay evidence?

If you are objecting, you desire to argue that yeah, the evidence is hearsay. For example:

Your Honour, the witness has testified to an out-of-court statement that the defence force/prosecution is offering to prove the truth of the affair stated.
The question calls for prove of an out-of-courtroom statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter.

Step Two: Is there an applicable hearsay exception?

If you made an objection, and opposing counsel says that an exception to hearsay applies, you need to be able to explain why it does not use. For example:

Your Honor, the argument is not being offered to explain the witness'south subsequent activeness; rather, information technology's being offered for the truth of the matter.
Your Accolade, the business records exception does non utilize considering a proper foundation has not been laid. At that place is no testify of how or when the record was prepared, so the prosecution/defense force has not demonstrated that the sources of data and method of preparation are trustworthy.

Opposing a Hearsay Objection

Stride One: Is there hearsay prove?

If you are offer the evidence, consider whether you can argue that the statement is non being offered for the truth of the matter. For instance:

Your Honour, the bear witness is not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Rather, information technology is being offered to explain the officeholder'southward subsequent action.

Step Two: Is at that place an applicable hearsay exception?

If y'all are offering hearsay testify, you demand to find an applicable exception to the hearsay dominion. For example:

This is an exception to the hearsay dominion, Your Honor. The statement is an admission by a party opponent.
Your Honor, an exception to the hearsay rule applies. This document is a business concern tape and is therefore admissible.
[ A more detailed argument for the business organisation record exception ] Your Award, this action is limited to the facts and evidence set forth in the mock trial case bundle. The instance packet does not include any evidence of the source of data or method of preparation for this document. The prosecution/defence force [ whichever side you're on ] would be prejudiced without this evidence. The Courtroom should therefore allow its admission under the business organisation records exception to hearsay.

Conclusion

I've prepared an infographic to assistance you remember the steps of the hearsay analysis and to give you some sample words to say when making and arguing objections. I promise it helps! Please feel free to print and share with your team or on social media.

allensompoo1977.blogspot.com

Source: https://mocktrialnerd.com/hearsay-evidence-rule/