wrote:
Wm... wrote:

Not sure how this fits in with legal practise but isn't this a
sort of "degrees of separation" or declension of sorts?

I did it (0)

I saw A do it (1)

I was told A did it (2)

A made a statement he did it (1)

He made a statement he saw A do it (2)

He made a statement he was told A did it. (3)

No, "I was told A did it" and "He made a statement he was told A
did it" are both hearsay.

The others aren't, and rank equally.

"A made a statement he did it" is also hearsay, but admissible because
it is subject to an exception to the hearsay rule.

"He made a statement he saw A do it" is hearsay as well, but is
admissible under narrow circumstances.

Stu

"News Admin" wrote:

Fair point. What I was suggesting (bearing in mind the OP) is
that hearsay isn't an absolute but a matter of degree and even
then is weighed by the court for veracity, etc.

Something is either hearsay or it's not. Whether it is or is not is
not a matter of degree.

However some forms of hearsay are considered more reliable than others,
or otherwise useful to the ends of justice. So whether hearsay is
admissible may be considered a matter of degree.

Stu

wrote:
"Wm..." wrote:

Where would "A told me he did it" fit in?

Surely being told (by A or otherwise) that A did it is not proof
that he did: the informant could be wrong (accidentally or
deliberately)?

It is certainly hearsay. But it's a kind of hearsay that is generally
admissible because it is considered particularly reliable. Someone
would not generally admit to committing a crime unless he actually did
so.

Stu

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
wrote:
"Wm..." wrote:

Where would "A told me he did it" fit in?

Surely being told (by A or otherwise) that A did it is not proof
that he did: the informant could be wrong (accidentally or
deliberately)?

It is certainly hearsay. But it's a kind of hearsay that is generally
admissible because it is considered particularly reliable. Someone
would not generally admit to committing a crime unless he actually did
so.


The point about the classification "hearsay" is that it is not based on
reliability. The second point is that a statement, on its own, is never
either hearsay or not.

You can only ask the question in the following terms, is statement X
adduced to prove fact Y hearsay or not? If X is a statement adduced to
prove the truth of the statement then it is hearsay. That is the
definition.

X might be adduced to prove that the statement was made. That would not
be hearsay.

Stu should be a little careful as rules on hearsay in criminal
proceedings (there is no bar to the admissibility of hearsay in
criminal trials) in England and Wales developed differently to those in
the US and have been radically reformed recently.

Francis

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

Something is either hearsay or it's not. Whether it is or is not is
not a matter of degree.


CJA 2003 definition of hearsay

""an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact
asserted".

In message ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:50:03 +0000, "Wm..."
wrote:

Not sure how this fits in with legal practise but isn't this a sort of
"degrees of separation" or declension of sorts?

I did it (0)

I saw A do it (1)

I was told A did it (2)

Where would "A told me he did it" fit in?

Surely being told (by A or otherwise) that A did it is not proof that
he did: the informant could be wrong (accidentally or deliberately)?


Strictly speaking it is hearsay. But one of the exceptions to the
hearsay rule is that when the accused makes statements adverse to his
position, those statements can be admitted in Court against him.
--
Richard Miller

" wrote:

The point about the classification "hearsay" is that it is not
based on reliability. The second point is that a statement, on its
own, is never either hearsay or not.

You can only ask the question in the following terms, is statement
X adduced to prove fact Y hearsay or not? If X is a statement
adduced to prove the truth of the statement then it is hearsay.
That is the definition.

X might be adduced to prove that the statement was made. That
would not be hearsay.

I agree completely.

Stu should be a little careful as rules on hearsay in criminal
proceedings (there is no bar to the admissibility of hearsay in
criminal trials) in England and Wales developed differently to
those in the US and have been radically reformed recently.

Thanks. I was attempting to limit my comments to the definition of
hearsay. Whether or not something is hearsay is not dispositive of
whether or not it is admissible, and I was trying not to express an
opinion on that issue.

Stu

Willy wrote:
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

Something is either hearsay or it's not. Whether it is or is not is
not a matter of degree.


CJA 2003 definition of hearsay

""an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact
asserted".

although that only applies to criminal proceedings....

Francis

" wrote in message
ps.com...

Willy wrote:
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

Something is either hearsay or it's not. Whether it is or is not is
not a matter of degree.


CJA 2003 definition of hearsay

""an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact
asserted".

although that only applies to criminal proceedings....

In relation to civil proceedings the CPR has the following:

http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrule...rts/part33.htm

Rule 33: 'hearsay' means a statement made, otherwise than by a person while
giving oral evidence in proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the
matters stated.

"The Todal" wrote:

" wrote in message
ps.com...

Willy wrote:
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

Something is either hearsay or it's not. Whether it is or is not is
not a matter of degree.


CJA 2003 definition of hearsay

""an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact
asserted".

although that only applies to criminal proceedings....

In relation to civil proceedings the CPR has the following:

http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrule...rts/part33.htm

Rule 33: 'hearsay' means a statement made, otherwise than by a person while
giving oral evidence in proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the
matters stated.

This reminds me of the only occasion in which I have been in the
witness box in legal proceedings (it was a civil matter, at a
hearing held in camera).

Barrister: And how did he react to that proposal?
Me: He was very much against it.
Barrister: How do you know that?
Me: Because he told me so.
Barrister: Oh well, that's just hearsay, then.

I protested, and the judge agreed with me. How does this tie in
with the Rule 33 quoted above?

--
Alec McKenzie