Is this hearsay? (in a legal context)

loiterer

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
40
Location
Western Australia
Lee is on trial for murder. Chris takes the stand and says that John told him that he (John) committed the murder. John has disappeared and can't be found to either affirm or deny this statement. Is Chris's statement hearsay?
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
IANAL but to me, here in the UK, yes. Whether it is so and whether it is acceptable in the appropriate jurisdiction depends upon the relative Law there. This question is probably best switched to the Research Forum with details of where this takes place.
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
This doesn't belong in BWQ; I'm moving it to Research.
 

Averhoes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
58
Reaction score
42
Hearsay is defined as an "out of court statement, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

There are a number of exceptions -- i.e. circumstances in which a person would be expected/motivated to tell the truth, or would at least be unlikely to lie, in which an out of court statement is admissible. By way of an example, a statement made to a physician by one seeking medical treatment, which is relevant to the medical treatment, is admissible. If you tell your doctor "I have a stabbing pain in the lower abdomen" you are probably telling the truth since a lie might lead to an unnecessary appendectomy.

Hearsay exceptions are divided into 2 categories - in one case, the "declarant" is unavailable at trial - in the second category, the availability of the declarant is irrelevant.

Under the "declarant unavailable" category, you have:
-- former testimony - testimony given at another trial/hearing/proceeding by a witness who is not presently available, if the party against whom this testimony is offered had an opportunity to cross-examine in the earlier action.
-- Statement under belief of impending death concerning the circumstances surrounding his/her death - this one is the Hollywood trope of the murder victim gasping out a name as he dies.
-- Statement of personal or family history - information about your own birth date, marriage, ancestry etc. is normally admissible - no one can remember when they were born but we readily let witnesses testify to their age or date of birth.
-- Statement against Interest. This is the one that you are interested in. A statement made by a declarant which, at the time it was made, was so far contrary to the interests of the declarant that a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless it was true. However, in a criminal case, a statement offered tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and tending to exculpate the defendant is not admissible unless there is corroborating evidence.(The reason for this is that it is too easy for a criminal defendant to testify "I did not do it - but Billy told me he did it" -- such testimony would only be admissible if there were some evidence supporting the assertion that Billy did it.

There was a relatively famous US Supreme Court case (Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 US 284 (1973)) which involved this idea. There was an altercation at a bar which spilled over into the surrounding street. A police officer was shot. The shots came from down an alley - none of the other officers present could actually see down the alley. The wounded officer turned, fired back down the alley, then collapsed. Fellow officers observed a fallen person lying in the alley but, in the confusion of the melee that was going on, did not secure the scene. The wounded officer died without regaining consciousness. (by the way, in this case, all principal participants were African Americans, including the police officer).

The wounded man in the alley was Leon Chambers. Friends found him and took him to a hospital, where he recovered from his wounds (and was charged with murder in the death of the police officer). Chambers insisted that he had been in the alley - but another man in the alley had fired the fatal shot at the police officer. The officer fired back, missed the shooter but hit Leon Chambers.

The day after the shooting, another local man named Gable McDonald fled from Mississippi to Louisiana. In Louisiana, the told at least 3 different people that he was the shooter. He stated that he had thrown the gun into a river. McDonald actually gave a sworn confession in Louisiana that he had been the shooter. But , when he learned that he might face capital punishment in Mississippi, he recanted the confession.

Chambers defense team wanted to introduce the recanted confession of Gable McDonald. This would have involved putting McDonald on the stand, having him deny it, then calling witnesses to contradict McDonald's testimony by saying they heard his "admission against interest". However, Mississippi had a rule that, when you called a witness, you "vouched" for his credibility - you cannot call witnesses to contract your own witness' testimony. The prosecution by the way, was NOT going to call Gable McDonald and was NOT going to introduce any evidence that he had confessed.

Chambers was convicted and sentenced to life in prison by a jury that did not hear about McDonald's testimony. On appeal, the US Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial. The prosecutor dropped the charges.
 

ironmikezero

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
426
Location
Haunted Louisiana
There's a bit more to the Leon Chambers/Gable McDonald story . . . The involved LE agencies in Mississippi and Louisiana did not stop the investigation with McDonald's sworn confession; they thoroughly examined every aspect of McDonald's assertion to corroborate or refute each detail--to include an extensive search for the murder weapon, which was never found. Ultimately, McDonald's confession could neither be proved nor disproved; that was sufficient to instill reasonable doubt if introduced at trial. The prosecutor in Mississippi knew this, and exercised prosecutorial discretion not to pursue another trial. The question of perjury/false statements was examined in Louisiana, but it was determined to be an undesirable case to pursue.
 

jclarkdawe

Feeling lucky, Query?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
10,297
Reaction score
3,859
Location
New Hampshire
Yes, this is hearsay. See Federal Rules of Evidence 801 through 807. Most state rules of evidence follow roughly along the lines of the Federal Rules, but each state does have differences and these differences can matter.

I am assuming Lee is calling Chris as a witness. The first question is whether the prosecution is aware of this statement or not, as that substantially effects how it is going to come into evidence (heard by the jury) or not. If the prosecutor is arguing the credibility of the statement, it's going to be somewhat difficult to get in, even if it qualifies as a statement against interest.

Realize that this problem comes up in a lot of criminal cases. Most frequently without the declarant being available, it will be excluded because of the lack of credibility. In a prison assault case, my client made no statement to the prison investigator. Another inmate did and admitted to the assault. Initially the other inmate refused to testify, but when he learned that the judge would not let his statement to the investigator into evidence (big credibility issues), the inmate testified. Result was a not guilty for my client. (From speaking with a couple of jurors after the trial, not because of this issue.)

Prosecutor then charged the other inmate with the crime, but when they learned my client would then testify and say he did the assault, the prosecutor gave it up as a bad job. But you can see why credibility of the hearsay statement becomes so important.

Jim Clark-Dawe