Hearsay Case Discussion

HEARSAY CASE DISCUSSION 5

HearsayCase Discussion

HearsayCase Study Discussion

Hearsayevidence is a statement testimony that is presented in courtproceedings by a witness with no direct knowledge of the factualreality. In this case, the statements given by the witness areconsidered hearsay when he or she knows the facts from another personby being told (Garland, 2011). The statements made by the witnessesin the case presented by the scenario do not constitute hearsayevidence. Despite presenting information that was told by anotherperson, the statements provided must be that which was informed ofthe witness by the other person. Through the admission of statementsas hearsay evidence, there are some exceptions and exemptions thatthe information should give.

Thestatements by Miss Maggie presented by the verbal and non-verbalcommunication do not constitute hearsay evidence. The first statementby the witness about the student who made the claims that there was abomb is ambiguous. This is because the witness does not specify whothe declarant was, in express terms. Hearsay statements areadmissible if there is a clear indication of the declarantand the witness. According to Gardnerand Anderson (2012),the witness is the person that testifies on the stand in a court oflaw, while the declarant is the person who made the statements. Inthe case provided, the witness is under oath while the declarant isthe defendant. However, the case presents a scenario where the twoare both in court.

Inaddition, the verbal and non-verbal statements presented by thewitness conflicts with his previous statements to the police. Afterthe bomb scare in college, the witness indicated that she did notclearly identify the person who stated that there was a bomb at thecollege. However, the witness points at the defendant to mean thatshe is the one who gave the information about a bomb in the college’sscience building. This is confirmed by the next witness, Mr. Mickie,who states that he learned about the bomb scare from the witness,Miss Maggie. These statements give a conflict of facts, whether fromthe declarant or by the witness. As a result, the evidence of thewitness cannot be admissible in the court of law as hearsay evidence.

Thereare three main steps of considering and classifying statements to behearsay. These three steps are violated by the statements that areoffered by the witness in the case provided. The first step is thatthe statement involved should be assertive. According to Hails(2011), a statement made by the declarant should be clear, conciseand assertive to relate directly to the situation of the case. Thisis a statement that is made with an intention of communicating afact. In the case of the statement of Miss Maggie as the witness, shedoes not give as assertive statement as to what she heard. This isbecause the case was a matter of a conversation she was not part of.The statement by the defendant, if it was made was made to converseto the colleague they were walking with and not to the witness, MissMaggie.

Thesecond step is that the statement must have been made by an out-of–court declarant (Hails, 2011). While the declarant is a defendantin court, the statement still qualifies to be hearsay since it wassaid in an out-of-court scene. However, the evidence does not standthe test of the third step. The third step is that the statementshould be offered as a way of proving the truth of the facts beingasserted (Garland, 2011). In this regard, Miss Maggie’s statementdoes not prove that the statement by the defendant led to the scareof the bomb at the college. In addition, the witness does not back upthe statement with further prove that the defendant meant the bombwas in the college science building.

Forhearsay to be strongly admissible, the witness must have heard theclaims about the case from the declarant. This means that hearsayshould be from an express conversation between the two or thedeclarant was clearly giving authentic information (Gardner&amp Anderson, 2012).In this case, the statements are not expressly told by the defendantto the witness. Instead, the information that the witness provides iswhat she hears from a conversation. First, the witness Miss Maggiewas not an active participant in the conversation. This means thatshe was not in clear knowledge of the context at which the two peoplewere conversing from. It is a situation where she overheard theconversation without the getting the previous statements and thepreceding statements.

Conclusion

Thestatement by Miss Maggie given about the defendant does notconstitute hearsay. This is because there is no an assertivestatement from the witness as given by the declarant. In addition,the declarant is not specifically identified by the witness who isnot sure as he indicates with non-verbal cues. The same statement isnot clearly backed up by the second witness, Mr. Mickie, whoindicates that the witness did not specify the declarant. Moreover,the oral statements of the witness conflicts her earlier statementswith the police at the college. Consequently, the statements throughthe verbal and the non-verbal communication in court do notconstitute hearsay.

References

Gardner,T., &amp Anderson,T. (2012). CriminalEvidence: Principles and Cases.Stamford: Cengage Learning

Garland,N. M. (2011). Criminalevidence (6thed.).New York, NY: McGraw Hil

Hails,J. (2011).Criminal evidence.Stamford: Cengage Learning