Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rules

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

  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    So from your post Trump needs to be investigated a hell of lot more because there stories out there with more proof than what you listed about him. Cool lets do it. Where his tax returns. Oh lets see the files Russia has on Trump. Matter of fact we need him to tesify before congress since Hillary did.
    What files ? Where is your proof that Russia has files on Trump ? Do you have a mole in the FSB ? If yes, why did you not produce these files earlier ? If not, this means that you don't know if such files exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    The tweo democrats who testified today were forced to admit that all they had was hearsay, hearsay that was unprovable .
    Under the bus .
    The bus has a lot of work today .

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    This is because you do not understand the concept behind what hearsay is and why it exists which does not include the case when a defendant makes a statement to a witness and the witness is called to testify in court about what the defendant told him.

    You do not need to have any exception based on the rules I provided about the unavailability of a declarant to admit as evidence the testimony of a witness who said that the defendant told him "x" So, it is not that I contradicted myself. It is just that you failed to understand the explanation I provided for why it makes no sense to have the rule's word "declarant" associated with the defendant.

    Sure.
    You win.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    Um, sure.
    Whatever you say.
    Please note that immediately after telling me trump is not the declarant, your third paragraph describes trump as the declarant.
    You don't even know when you are contradicting yourself.
    But do go on.
    This is because you do not understand the concept behind what hearsay is and why it exists which does not include the case when a defendant makes a statement to a witness and the witness is called to testify in court about what the defendant told him.

    You do not need to have any exception based on the rules I provided about the unavailability of a declarant to admit as evidence the testimony of a witness who said that the defendant told him "x"

    So, it is not that I contradicted myself. It is just that you failed to understand the explanation I provided for why it makes no sense to have the rule's word "declarant" associated with the defendant.
    Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 19:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Bolton is unavailable just like many witnesses who follow Trump's orders. And in fact some of them have requested courts to issue a specific decision that they can testify in court.

    Your attempt to equate the declarant with Trump makes no sense since the hearsay from the witnesses is not about what Trump told them. In fact, some of the diplomats did not even talk to Trump.

    Moreover, if the diplomats had talked to Trump and they said that Trump told me "x", this can certainly be admitted to courts and cannot be discarded as a :"hearsay" just because the defendant pleads the fifth and decides not to talk about what he said to the witness.

    So, your desperation to change the meaning of the definition of declarant and equate it with the defendant is obvious and makes no sense


    Um, sure.
    Whatever you say.
    Please note that immediately after telling me trump is not the declarant, your third paragraph describes trump as the declarant.
    You don't even know when you are contradicting yourself.
    But do go on.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    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"
    Bolton is unavailable just like many witnesses who follow Trump's orders. And in fact some of them have requested courts to issue a specific decision that they can testify in court.

    Your attempt to equate the declarant with Trump makes no sense since the hearsay from the witnesses is not about what Trump told them. In fact, some of the diplomats did not even talk to Trump.

    Moreover, if the diplomats had talked to Trump and they said that Trump told me "x", this can certainly be admitted to courts and cannot be discarded as a :"hearsay" just because the defendant pleads the fifth and decides not to talk about what he said to the witness.

    So, your desperation to change the meaning of the definition of declarant and equate it with the defendant is obvious and makes no sense
    Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 18:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Let's say that the hearsay is all admisible. That preponderance of evidence shows Trump was using withholding aid to get the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden, so what? Does being the son of an ex vice-president shield you from investigation?

    There is a chain of consequences from a central evil. That evil is Hillary Clinton. Had she or her surrogates not used the intimidation of the U.S. government to pressure the Ukrainians to participate in smearing the opposition candidate and got away with it perhaps Joe Biden would not have been so cavalier about using U.S. aid to get a prosecutor investigating a company his son was working for dismissed. Had she not destroyed her illegal servers and had the DNC turned over their servers Wikileaks and Russian collusion would have been irrelevant. Had she not been running for president the head of the FBI would not have discredited the intelligence community by creating the fictitious defense of intent. Had the intelligence community and media not supported her Barr and Durham would have little to investigate. If the mess of covering up her misdeeds had never happened Trump would have been able to go through normal channels to investigate what happened in the Ukrainian.
    So from your post Trump needs to be investigated a hell of lot more because there stories out there with more proof than what you listed about him. Cool lets do it. Where his tax returns. Oh lets see the files Russia has on Trump. Matter of fact we need him to tesify before congress since Hillary did.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    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.
    If Nunes is leaking information to Trump as you propose, Trump has a vested interest here and really a right to know what's happening in the proceedings. Both Nixon and Clinton were afforded the right to council present during all impeachment proceedings. Trump has not been given that courtesy, particularly by Schiff.

    Schiff on the other hand is leaking information to the MSM to gain political advantage. This is devious and wrong, particularly since the closed door hearings are supposedly sensitive or classified in nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X