Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rules

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pamak View Post


    These are "Just rules" is not a counterpoint without anything additional information such as a court rulings that strikes down these rules. A voter will need to adopt a political position, so he needs to evaluate everything, including information that does not come from his field of expertise.

    Of course, when the non-experts were chanting "lock her up" immediately after the experts refused to even prosecute a political figure, we did not hear a lot about the need to have laypeople defer to the experts....

    We also didn't have the laypeople, aka the mob, waxing eloquent. It was rather a mob, and in proper mob fashion, they were fickle, and once ignored, went away.

    What you have here is attempts to make what is in fact hearsay, and inadmissible, made admissible by sophistry and deceit playing upon hearsay exceptions that are extremely well litigated and in fact are litigated daily.

    Walk into any court of law in the US and try to get secondhand testimony into the record on the basis that the primary witness, who is not the defendant themselves, is refusing to testify, and you'll get laughed out of court. A defendant has a right to not testify, therefore there is an associated hearsay exception to match that assertion of rights. A non-defendant who is still living and competent does not have a right to not testify in court, therefore if they're refusing to do so, there's a process known as 'Show Cause' and 'Direct Criminal Contempt'. There's also the doctrine of 'Hostile Witness' if the witness appears and refuses to answer a question that is probative and otherwise lawful.
    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

      We also didn't have the laypeople, aka the mob, waxing eloquent. It was rather a mob, and in proper mob fashion, they were fickle, and once ignored, went away.

      What you have here is attempts to make what is in fact hearsay, and inadmissible, made admissible by sophistry and deceit playing upon hearsay exceptions that are extremely well litigated and in fact are litigated daily.

      Walk into any court of law in the US and try to get secondhand testimony into the record on the basis that the primary witness, who is not the defendant themselves, is refusing to testify, and you'll get laughed out of court. A defendant has a right to not testify, therefore there is an associated hearsay exception to match that assertion of rights. A non-defendant who is still living and competent does not have a right to not testify in court, therefore if they're refusing to do so, there's a process known as 'Show Cause' and 'Direct Criminal Contempt'. There's also the doctrine of 'Hostile Witness' if the witness appears and refuses to answer a question that is probative and otherwise lawful.
      So now you speak as an expert?
      And if you do not speak as an expert , why do not you try at least to cite the experts and explain how the exemptions do not apply?
      Right now, you just refuse to accept the cited evidence that there are rules that permit the use of hearsay in criminal cases. I assume the reason that you do not see it often in courts is because the people there cannot so easily avoid a subpoena by a prosecutor which of course is completely different from the situation n hand when the administration ignores House subpoenas.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        All the first hand people who refuse to appear. And no, telling the truth regarding the fact that this process is political does not make it a "show trial"
        Hahahahaha.
        Um, no.
        But do go on.
        You’re making me look foolish.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

          I do positively enjoy it when laypeople pull out court rules, not rulings, just 'rules', and start waxing eloquent about them and how such and so applies. It's not quite as entertaining as a traffic stop with a "Free Man Traveling on the Land", but it's damned close. And I'm not concerned that said laypeople will pull a hogleg out and shoot me to assert their right to travel or somesuch.


          Now as to the Hearsay, and Hearsay exceptions, especially as it relates to things in Criminal proceedings (of which while wholly political, an impeachment and the later 'trial' do attempt to clothe themselves in the trappings thereof):

          Legend: W-Witness. D-Defendant. EW-Expert Witness. LW-LE Witness

          Witness can testify about what they saw, heard, smelled, tasted, read, etc. Anything that they have direct first-hand accounting of, to include anything which they recorded their past memories of (notes, emails, etc) is viable testimony. That can include impressions of demeanor, though it's open to some heavy cross-examination.

          Witnesses can testify about anything that the defendant told them, period. So long as they were not acting at the direction of an LW, a W can question a D as much as they please. Anything the D tells a W is fair game. Any recordings made by a W, provided that they're not otherwise illegal, are also fair game provided that the W who made the recording is present to testify that it is indeed their recording and a true and accurate depiction.

          Expert Witnesses are allowed to make some presumptions, inferences, and opinions within their area of expertise. This is something not allotted to other witnesses.

          LE Witnesses, and other witnesses (though rare), can testify to the accounts given them by say a witness who is now deceased, incompetent, or otherwise UNABLE to testify in a permanent sense.

          Hearsay is specifically trying to testify to second or third hand information. There is no exception to one witness saying that he heard another witness tell him that the defendant told him X or overheard Y. You get that OTHER witness, provided that they're not dead etc. The firsthand witness refusing to cooperate does not suddenly make a secondhand or thirdhand witness valid.

          Roughly 75% of my job as an investigator is finding those firsthand accounts and/or records. Typically I hear something second hand from my victim or reporting party, and then have to go run down admissible testimony. That's called an interview and it's done back of the house. What's being done publicly and now is sworn testimony, so we're looking at minimum at a deposition....you can't get hearsay in a deposition, you can only get admissible testimony.

          I'd say that if hearsay is involved, it means that they haven't put a proper investigator in charge of ferreting out witnesses and testimony. When my DA puts one of my witnesses on the stand, he's been extensively briefed by me on what that witness will testify to that is not hearsay and how their testimony is admissible, and has had opportunity to confer with the witness to confirm this.

          As to my CV on the topic, I've been doing it in real life for over 10 years. I have a solid track record of good investigations and a high conviction/plea rate. And I'm one of my local DA's office top 5 detectives that they like to work with and work cases from because I deliver them solid conviction cases on a silver platter with whipped cream and a cherry on top.


          Agree completely.
          Well said.

          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

            Hahahahaha.
            Um, no.
            But do go on.
            You’re making me look foolish.
            Uhm yes!

            Predictable though that you could not find the definition you wanted, even though you claim that you are an expert

            From the same link

            https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-801/

            (b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.
            Last edited by pamak; 17 Nov 19, 20:48.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              All the first hand people who refuse to appear. And no, telling the truth regarding the fact that this process is political does not make it a "show trial"
              Sure it does. It's like...



              Schiff changes his committee rules every day. He refuses to do anything the Republicans ask for including allowing them to call witnesses.

              When the head judge, or whatever you want to call him, trots in a bunch of party apparatchiks who he knows will say only what he wants to hear, and is really just going through the motions because he's already long ago decided the verdict, that's a classic Stalinist show trial.

              The definition of a show trial is one that puts political opponents on trial where the verdict is already decided solely for the purpose of trying to persuade public opinion. That's precisely what Schiff is doing right now.



              Schiff made up his mind Trump's guilty long ago. Doesn't matter what Mueller says, Schiff KNOWS Trump colluded with Russia. This is latest round of his delusional BS is more of the same. That he won't even let the Republicans have anything close to equal time is just indicative of how he intends to steamroller his "investigation" through to an impeachment vote regardless of evidence, public opinion, lack of Republican support, etc.

              Remember what happened to the Democrats after they did exactly that with Obamacare?



              Remember that delusional quote?

              The mid terms were a disaster for the Democrats. Now we're going into a national election in less than a year and the Democrats are trying their damnedest to impeach Trump rather than simply get their own party's nominee elected. Are they that unsure, that unconfident that their "big three" and the seven dwarfs are all incapable of besting Trump? We keep hearing how unelectable Trump is. It should be easy pickings for the Democrats.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                Sure it does. It's like...



                Schiff changes his committee rules every day. He refuses to do anything the Republicans ask for including allowing them to call witnesses.

                When the head judge, or whatever you want to call him, trots in a bunch of party apparatchiks who he knows will say only what he wants to hear, and is really just going through the motions because he's already long ago decided the verdict, that's a classic Stalinist show trial.

                The definition of a show trial is one that puts political opponents on trial where the verdict is already decided solely for the purpose of trying to persuade public opinion. That's precisely what Schiff is doing right now.



                Schiff made up his mind Trump's guilty long ago. Doesn't matter what Mueller says, Schiff KNOWS Trump colluded with Russia. This is latest round of his delusional BS is more of the same. That he won't even let the Republicans have anything close to equal time is just indicative of how he intends to steamroller his "investigation" through to an impeachment vote regardless of evidence, public opinion, lack of Republican support, etc.

                Remember what happened to the Democrats after they did exactly that with Obamacare?



                Remember that delusional quote?

                The mid terms were a disaster for the Democrats. Now we're going into a national election in less than a year and the Democrats are trying their damnedest to impeach Trump rather than simply get their own party's nominee elected. Are they that unsure, that unconfident that their "big three" and the seven dwarfs are all incapable of besting Trump? We keep hearing how unelectable Trump is. It should be easy pickings for the Democrats.
                The republicans are the ones who constantly change their mind when at first they complained about the behind closed door procedures, and now they whine about the show trials. The same attitude was with the demand to have a formal House vote or not.

                Schiff is not a judge. The trial will take place in the senate. I have no problem with the procedure of this investigation which actually permits the republicans to bring witnesses with the approval of the chairman. The republicans revealed their colors when they chose to vote against the impeachment. There is no reason to give them a big say in proceedings that do not see them as proper. Such choice will simply give them another tool to undermine and derail the investigation.

                Scams like Nunes have revealed how they operate when they have a free hand in such proceedings. You may recall how the chairman at the time Nunes was arranging meetings to brief the subject of the investigation without informing the democrats. So, it is prudent to restrict as much as possible the hand of a partisan hack like him.

                Also, it made a lot of sense to have the first phase behind closed doors to avoid having witnesses aligning their stories based on previous testimonies and it makes sense to have no a public phase so that future voters can see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears what was testified previously. Schiff's partisan feelings may indeed affect his judgment but this applies also to the republican senators who will actually be the jury while at the same time they seek Trump's political support for their reelection. The process is inherently political and pointing selectively at Schiff does not cut it.

                Finally, the only delusional quote I saw was the one which claimed that the mid-term was a disaster for the democrats. Meanwhile, this comes while you complain about the power that the democrats have in the House Intelligence Committee. Anyway, as i said I am not into making predictions about the elections. Nor do I believe that elections somehow will prove the correctness of a particular stand on the impeachment or on anything else. I do not think that anybody on the left or the right abolishes his views on the different political subjects about 50% of the time when the political opponents win an election. To me, if Trump manages to get away with what he does, there will be serious consequences for the republic in the long run because future administrations will be willing to copy his tactics at least as long as they control one chamber of the Congress.
                Last edited by pamak; 17 Nov 19, 22:06.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  So now you speak as an expert?
                  And if you do not speak as an expert , why do not you try at least to cite the experts and explain how the exemptions do not apply?
                  Right now, you just refuse to accept the cited evidence that there are rules that permit the use of hearsay in criminal cases. I assume the reason that you do not see it often in courts is because the people there cannot so easily avoid a subpoena by a prosecutor which of course is completely different from the situation n hand when the administration ignores House subpoenas.
                  I believe you will see in my posts above that I specifically noted that the proceeding at hand is in fact not a criminal proceeding and merely a political one that attempts to clothe itself in the trappings and respect of the criminal courts. With that in mind, they could have a Seance or testimony by Ms. Cleo, and it would be as valid as those in power feel it is. Just don't attempt to equivocate political theater with an actual court of law.

                  And what's been cited has literally no bearing on the criminal system. Which is something that I would argue, in an actual court of law, that I have a particular level of expertise with. The interpretation laid out is effectively thus:

                  Bob: I heard Bill say that he heard Roger say that he did the crime two weeks ago.

                  We'd like to speak to Bill. Bill's refusing to show up to court, therefore Bob's testimony is magically valid and not hearsay.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Actually the problem is Schiff. For example:

                    After closed hearings strategic leaks to Democrat friendly news outlets like the NYT and WaPo have repeatedly occurred.

                    https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-i...193644149.html

                    Schiff has also gone on national news programs and given information as well as personal opinion just short of saying Trump will be impeached.

                    The rumors are Schiff is the one that has coached witnesses. This seems more likely since the Republicans to date haven't been able to call any of their own...

                    Schiff has stopped Republican lines of questioning repeatedly.

                    But, what it really comes down to is that Republicans are not onboard with impeachment and even some Democrats aren't. At this point Schiff's case is weak, at best, and very unlikely to change many, if any minds. That means his effort is wasted and carrying this to it's conclusion will only hurt the Democrats.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                      I believe you will see in my posts above that I specifically noted that the proceeding at hand is in fact not a criminal proceeding and merely a political one that attempts to clothe itself in the trappings and respect of the criminal courts. With that in mind, they could have a Seance or testimony by Ms. Cleo, and it would be as valid as those in power feel it is. Just don't attempt to equivocate political theater with an actual court of law.

                      And what's been cited has literally no bearing on the criminal system. Which is something that I would argue, in an actual court of law, that I have a particular level of expertise with. The interpretation laid out is effectively thus:

                      Bob: I heard Bill say that he heard Roger say that he did the crime two weeks ago.

                      We'd like to speak to Bill. Bill's refusing to show up to court, therefore Bob's testimony is magically valid and not hearsay.
                      What has been cited has bearing in the criminal system too and you have not cited anything to contradict the claim.Again, cite the evidence instead of claiming a level of personal experience which in internet worths absolutely nothing, especially since here we talk about federal and not your state's law.

                      From the same link:



                      Rule 1101 – Applicability of the Rules


                      (a) To Courts and Judges. These rules apply to proceedings before:
                      • United States district courts;
                      • United States bankruptcy and magistrate judges;
                      • United States courts of appeals;
                      • the United States Court of Federal Claims; and
                      • the district courts of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

                      (b) To Cases and Proceedings. These rules apply in:
                      • civil cases and proceedings, including bankruptcy, admiralty, and maritime cases;
                      • criminal cases and proceedings; and
                      • contempt proceedings, except those in which the court may act summarily.


                      I am the one who has tried from the beginning to separate the political process from the actual criminal one despite the attempt by the conservatives to conflate them. Notice how I responded to one of the people here (underlined)

                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      First of all, here as i said the procedure is political. So it is not about what exceptions apply. You should rephrase the question to what exceptions WOULD apply IF the procedure was a criminal one prosecuted by the DOJ. And in that case, here is one

                      https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-804/

                      Rule 804 – Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable


                      (a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant:

                      (1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;


                      (2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;
                      And again, Bill cannot refuse to appear in front of the investigator after a subpoena. And for sure, Roger would to be able to dictate to Bill if he should appear or not in front of the investigators and would not be able to attack Bill with tweets.
                      Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 04:21.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Actually the problem is Schiff. For example:

                        After closed hearings strategic leaks to Democrat friendly news outlets like the NYT and WaPo have repeatedly occurred.

                        https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-i...193644149.html

                        Schiff has also gone on national news programs and given information as well as personal opinion just short of saying Trump will be impeached.

                        The rumors are Schiff is the one that has coached witnesses. This seems more likely since the Republicans to date haven't been able to call any of their own...

                        Schiff has stopped Republican lines of questioning repeatedly.

                        But, what it really comes down to is that Republicans are not onboard with impeachment and even some Democrats aren't. At this point Schiff's case is weak, at best, and very unlikely to change many, if any minds. That means his effort is wasted and carrying this to it's conclusion will only hurt the Democrats.
                        Again, Nunes leaks to Trump when he was the chairman before the mid-elections cannot be compared to any leaks you see now which by the way are not coming just from the liberal press. There have been leaks to the right-wing press also when distorted parts of testimonies have been used to justify their narrative. And for every personal opinion Schiff has expressed, I can cite the same thing with Graham and other like minded senators.In the end though, Schiff will not be the one who will impeach Trump. It will be the Congress.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          Uhm yes!

                          Predictable though that you could not find the definition you wanted, even though you claim that you are an expert

                          From the same link

                          https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-801/

                          (b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.



                          The identity of the declarant is easy, instead of simply saying the one who made the statement you said “all the first hand people who refuse to appear” which isn’t remotely true.
                          The declarant is one person, the one who made the hearsay statement (declaration)
                          I’m glad that you eventually found the correct definition.

                          I’m no expert. I work in a grocery store collecting shopping carts, but somehow still still had no problem with the simple issues involved.

                          Initially you claimed that the “hearsay exception” that would apply is the one where the declarant is unavailable. That is why I asked you to identify the declarant. You didn’t get my point and made something up. The point I was driving at is that the exception you claimed applied required the declarant to be “unavailable”. Since the declarant is trump, it is going to be tough to claim he is “unavailable”.

                          I’ll be nice and save you some time and let you know that establishing “unavailability” requires a lot more than just saying he is uncooperative.
                          Forgive me but I must go now as those carts won’t collect themselves.
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post




                            The identity of the declarant is easy, instead of simply saying the one who made the statement you said “all the first hand people who refuse to appear” which isn’t remotely true.
                            The declarant is one person, the one who made the hearsay statement (declaration)
                            I’m glad that you eventually found the correct definition.

                            I’m no expert. I work in a grocery store collecting shopping carts, but somehow still still had no problem with the simple issues involved.

                            Initially you claimed that the “hearsay exception” that would apply is the one where the declarant is unavailable. That is why I asked you to identify the declarant. You didn’t get my point and made something up. The point I was driving at is that the exception you claimed applied required the declarant to be “unavailable”. Since the declarant is trump, it is going to be tough to claim he is “unavailable”.

                            I’ll be nice and save you some time and let you know that establishing “unavailability” requires a lot more than just saying he is uncooperative.
                            Forgive me but I must go now as those carts won’t collect themselves.
                            Sorry but the declarant is not Trump. It can be a regular witness according to the rules who are not available because Trump orders them not to testify

                            This can include people like Bolton who according to what other witnesses said saw the whole affair as a drug deal. It does not cut it to have Trump first making many (not all) first-hand witnesses unavailable and then claim with a broad statement that no hearsay can be used.
                            Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 06:21.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              Sorry but the declarant is not Trump. It can be a regular witness according to the rules who are not available because Trump orders them not to testify

                              This can include people like Bolton who according to what other witnesses said saw the whole affair as a drug deal. It does not cut it to have Trump first making many (not all) first-hand witnesses unavailable and then claim with a broad statement that no hearsay can be used.


                              Sigh.
                              I keep forgetting about your expertise with the rules you don't understand.

                              Bolton can testify. he isn't unavailable. As such, a witness repeating bolton's out of court statements for proof of the matter asserted is hearsay. "Other witnesses" cannot testify as to what Bolton heard. In the cart collecting world we call that "double hearsay" and speculative.
                              But in your desperation not to be proven wrong by a guy who just collects shopping carts you keep changing your point.

                              As to anything trump said. Trump is the declarant.
                              Trump's statements cannot be used as proof of the matter asserted absent applicability of one of the exceptions.
                              Your belief that the declarant need not be trump is funny. He's the target. Remember?
                              So please tell me more.


                              I also note that you are backing away from your claim that the declarant is "all the first hand people"
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                So, 90%+ of the testimony is still hearsay, gossip, and bureaucratic whining. You'd think something like a national policy involving the President and State Department would have produced a veritable pile of memos, documents, e-mails, phone records, etc. Yet, we have one several page transcript and a complaint filed by a "whistleblower" that the head Democrat is shielding from testimony probably because that person was a plant and agent provocateur within the White House.

                                The parade of so-called witnesses so far are all saying they heard this, or so-and-so said this, or they overheard something, etc. That's all hearsay and gossip. Dragging in disgruntled employees to take a potshot at their ex-boss doesn't help the case either.

                                This is where Schiff's show trial is right now. I call it a show trial because Schiff has repeatedly stated over various causes that Trump deserves impeachment and that he'd vote for it. No impartiality there. If you watch his interactions with Republicans on his committee, Schiff is doing everything he can to limit cross examination, confound and limit the other party to question any of his "witnesses" (I use quotes since most didn't witness anything), and won't even call the witnesses (who may well be equally useless) the Republicans have formally asked to appear.
                                So you don't think withholding congressionally approved aid for personal reasons isn't an abuse of power? Smells like a quid pro quo to me.

                                The whistleblower only exposed this secret scheme, the phone call is irrelevant compared to everything else it's exposed at this point.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X