wrote in message
...
Hello,

Can anyone tell me what the definition of "hearsay evidence" is in
layman's terms?

I've found references via google but in legal-speak that I don't fully
understand. If I understand correctly, and I'm not sure I do, it seems
to be any evidence that is not given orally in court. Is that right?

Would a letter be hearsay evidence?

Would a witness statement?

I think a witness statement is given with the intent it is used in
evidence whereas a letter is not; does that make a difference?

Or is the important fact that by using written evidence the author is
not available for cross-examination by the other party?

Thanks.

It's a bit more complicated than that. You have to think about what the
evidence is being relied upon to prove.

A letter is direct evidence that the letter was sent. But if the letter says
that Tommy threw a kitten down the well, that isn't direct evidence that he
did - it's hearsay. But it is direct evidence that the letter-writer
*thought* Tommy threw a kitten down the well.

If someone gives evidence of what they saw, whether orally or in a witness
statement, that is direct evidence. If they give evidence of what someone
told them about the incident, that is hearsay. But it is direct evidence
that they said it - eg if they say a criminal confessed to them.

Chris R

In message , ChrisR
y.com.address writes

It's a bit more complicated than that. You have to think about what the
evidence is being relied upon to prove.

A letter is direct evidence that the letter was sent. But if the letter says
that Tommy threw a kitten down the well, that isn't direct evidence that he
did - it's hearsay. But it is direct evidence that the letter-writer
*thought* Tommy threw a kitten down the well.

If someone gives evidence of what they saw, whether orally or in a witness
statement, that is direct evidence. If they give evidence of what someone
told them about the incident, that is hearsay. But it is direct evidence
that they said it - eg if they say a criminal confessed to them.


And just to take that one stage further, Fred standing up in Court and
saying "I saw Tommy throw a kitten down a well" is direct evidence of
the fact. But if all the Court has is a written statement from Fred to
that effect, then that written statement is hearsay evidence of the
fact that Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

But of course, the written statement would be direct evidence of the
fact that Fred claimed Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

I hope these examples will help to explain how it works, rather than
just confusing the matter even further. :-)
--
Richard Miller

"Richard Miller" wrote in message
...
In message , ChrisR
y.com.address writes

It's a bit more complicated than that. You have to think about what the
evidence is being relied upon to prove.

A letter is direct evidence that the letter was sent. But if the letter
says
that Tommy threw a kitten down the well, that isn't direct evidence that
he
did - it's hearsay. But it is direct evidence that the letter-writer
*thought* Tommy threw a kitten down the well.

If someone gives evidence of what they saw, whether orally or in a witness
statement, that is direct evidence. If they give evidence of what someone
told them about the incident, that is hearsay. But it is direct evidence
that they said it - eg if they say a criminal confessed to them.


And just to take that one stage further, Fred standing up in Court and
saying "I saw Tommy throw a kitten down a well" is direct evidence of the
fact. But if all the Court has is a written statement from Fred to that
effect, then that written statement is hearsay evidence of the fact that
Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

But of course, the written statement would be direct evidence of the fact
that Fred claimed Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

I hope these examples will help to explain how it works, rather than just
confusing the matter even further. :-)
--
Richard Miller

Except if the written statement is a witness statement given in the
proceedings: these days a witness statement is accepted as being the same as
evidence given in the witness box in many proceedings.

Chris R

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:20:02
uk.legal.moderated Richard Miller

In message ,
ChrisR y.com.address
writes

It's a bit more complicated than that. You have to think about what the
evidence is being relied upon to prove.

A letter is direct evidence that the letter was sent. But if the letter says
that Tommy threw a kitten down the well, that isn't direct evidence that he
did - it's hearsay. But it is direct evidence that the letter-writer
*thought* Tommy threw a kitten down the well.

If someone gives evidence of what they saw, whether orally or in a witness
statement, that is direct evidence. If they give evidence of what someone
told them about the incident, that is hearsay. But it is direct evidence
that they said it - eg if they say a criminal confessed to them.


And just to take that one stage further, Fred standing up in Court and
saying "I saw Tommy throw a kitten down a well" is direct evidence of
the fact. But if all the Court has is a written statement from Fred to
that effect, then that written statement is hearsay evidence of the
fact that Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

But of course, the written statement would be direct evidence of the
fact that Fred claimed Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

I hope these examples will help to explain how it works, rather than
just confusing the matter even further. :-)

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)

Where the number in brackets is the "degree of separation" from "I did
it"

Obviously the reliability of the witness or their statement is taken
into account but the further one gets away from "I did it" the more
"hearsay-ish" it becomes in the court.

--
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Lauren Child - Clarice Bean, Don't Look Now
Julian Barnes - England, England

In message , ChrisR
y.com.address writes

"Richard Miller" wrote in message
...
But of course, the written statement would be direct evidence of the fact
that Fred claimed Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

I hope these examples will help to explain how it works, rather than just
confusing the matter even further. :-)
--
Richard Miller

Except if the written statement is a witness statement given in the
proceedings: these days a witness statement is accepted as being the same as
evidence given in the witness box in many proceedings.


It's still hearsay. It is just hearsay that is permitted in Court.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote in
:

....

Except if the written statement is a witness statement given in the
proceedings: these days a witness statement is accepted as being the
same as evidence given in the witness box in many proceedings.


It's still hearsay. It is just hearsay that is permitted in Court.

It must also be pointed out that it is only admissable in evidence under
certain conditions, the most common one being that it contains no
contentious statement of fact and that it isn't objected to by either side.
Say a continuity statement for a particular exhibit. Or a simple charging
statement.

--
Regards,

Periander

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. After all, the main prosecution
witness saying "I saw A do it" should be on the same level as the
accused saying "I didn't do it".

David

"Periander" wrote in message
...
Richard Miller wrote in
:

...

Except if the written statement is a witness statement given in the
proceedings: these days a witness statement is accepted as being the
same as evidence given in the witness box in many proceedings.


It's still hearsay. It is just hearsay that is permitted in Court.

It must also be pointed out that it is only admissable in evidence under
certain conditions, the most common one being that it contains no
contentious statement of fact and that it isn't objected to by either
side.
Say a continuity statement for a particular exhibit. Or a simple charging
statement.

--
Regards,

Periander

As I understand it, in most civil proceedings witness statements are
admissible in interim hearings and as the witnesses' evidence in chief at
trial, provided they attend to be cross-examined on it if required.

Chris R

In message ], Wm...
writes
Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:20:02
uk.legal.moderated Richard Miller



And just to take that one stage further, Fred standing up in Court and
saying "I saw Tommy throw a kitten down a well" is direct evidence of
the fact. But if all the Court has is a written statement from Fred to
that effect, then that written statement is hearsay evidence of the
fact that Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

But of course, the written statement would be direct evidence of the
fact that Fred claimed Tommy threw a kitten down a well.

I hope these examples will help to explain how it works, rather than
just confusing the matter even further. :-)

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)

Where the number in brackets is the "degree of separation" from "I did
it"

Obviously the reliability of the witness or their statement is taken
into account but the further one gets away from "I did it" the more
"hearsay-ish" it becomes in the court.


Yes, that is exactly what it is all about.
--
Richard Miller

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:35:03
. com
uk.legal.moderated

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. After all, the main prosecution
witness saying "I saw A do it" should be on the same level as the
accused saying "I didn't do it".

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.

--
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Lauren Child - Clarice Bean, Don't Look Now
Julian Barnes - England, England