Hearsay
Tomorrow I take my Evidence Midterm. It's a "take home" test, which essentially means I'll be hunkered down in the library for seven hours working on it. It's sixty multiple choice questions. We're allowed to use outside sources, i.e. our textbooks, supplements, etc.
The problem is, understanding the concept of hearsay is like trying to nail down a Ziploc bag full of applesauce. The whole concept is incredibly amorphous.
A statement can be hearsay if used for one purpose, yet not hearsay if used for another.
A statement which is hearsay can be admitted, if it falls under an exception.
Hearsay within hearsay is admissible, if both items of hearsay fall within the exception.
Furthermore, it is sometimes arguable whether an act is itself an assertion. If it puports to show the truth, it's inadmissible. If it is merely an act, and has no assertive properties, it can be admitted. For example- does one use an umbrella to assert that it's raining, or merely to keep dry? Common sense seems to think the two are synonymous, but modern legal theory splits the issue with (seemingly) Solomonesque wisdom.
Lastly, often the hearsay rules exclude evidence which is highly reliable, yet doesn't conform with the rules. There doesn't seem to be an "equitable" exception to the hearsay rules, one where the judge can say, "Hearsay rules be damned, I'm admitting this."
Interestingly enough, the modern trend is quickly eroding the concept of hearsay. In other words, the exceptions are quickly engulfing the rule. Yet, just like the Rule of Perpetuities in Property, I have to learn it.
The problem is, understanding the concept of hearsay is like trying to nail down a Ziploc bag full of applesauce. The whole concept is incredibly amorphous.
A statement can be hearsay if used for one purpose, yet not hearsay if used for another.
A statement which is hearsay can be admitted, if it falls under an exception.
Hearsay within hearsay is admissible, if both items of hearsay fall within the exception.
Furthermore, it is sometimes arguable whether an act is itself an assertion. If it puports to show the truth, it's inadmissible. If it is merely an act, and has no assertive properties, it can be admitted. For example- does one use an umbrella to assert that it's raining, or merely to keep dry? Common sense seems to think the two are synonymous, but modern legal theory splits the issue with (seemingly) Solomonesque wisdom.
Lastly, often the hearsay rules exclude evidence which is highly reliable, yet doesn't conform with the rules. There doesn't seem to be an "equitable" exception to the hearsay rules, one where the judge can say, "Hearsay rules be damned, I'm admitting this."
Interestingly enough, the modern trend is quickly eroding the concept of hearsay. In other words, the exceptions are quickly engulfing the rule. Yet, just like the Rule of Perpetuities in Property, I have to learn it.
