Also known as: hearsays · hearsay evidence · hearsay rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An out-of-court statement that a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The rule excludes such statements because the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination at trial. A statement qualifies only if it meets both the out-of-court and truth-of-the-matter requirements.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Harriet Hamilton seeks to introduce a letter written by Hunter Hughes describing a car accident. The letter was created months before trial. The court excludes the letter because it is offered to establish the facts of the collision rather than for any non-truth purpose.
In a criminal prosecution, the government offers a recorded police interview of Henry Hoffman describing the defendant's actions. The defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine Hoffman, who is now unavailable. The court bars the statement under the Confrontation Clause.
Hiroshi Hasegawa testifies at trial that he saw nothing unusual. The defense offers his earlier deposition statement, given under oath, that directly contradicts this testimony. Because the declarant is testifying and subject to cross-examination, the prior statement is admissible for its truth.
Hana Hashimoto, detained as an enemy combatant, challenges her detention before a military tribunal. The government introduces out-of-court reports from informants. The tribunal may consider the reports under relaxed evidentiary standards while still affording a meaningful opportunity to contest the facts.
Hakeem Harris offers a transcript of prior sworn testimony from a now-deceased witness. The proponent shows that reasonable efforts failed to secure the witness's attendance. The transcript is admissible under the former-testimony exception because the declarant is unavailable.
Horizon Dynamics is on trial for fraud. The defense seeks to introduce a third party's reliable out-of-court confession that exonerates the company. Strict application of the hearsay rule would exclude the confession and deprive the defendant of a fair trial, so the court admits the statement.
A statement qualifies as hearsay only when the declarant makes it outside the current trial or hearing and a party offers it to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Both conditions must be present. If either element is missing, the statement falls outside the definition.
Supporting sources
The Clause prohibits admission of testimonial out-of-court statements against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Reliability alone does not satisfy the requirement. Traditional hearsay exceptions cannot substitute for confrontation when the statement is testimonial.
…matter. [^maj-14]: Such statements are declarations by a party defendant that "would surmount all objections based on the hearsay rule . . ." and, at least as to the declarant himself, "would be admissible for whatever inferences" might be reasonably drawn. See United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164, 172, 94 S.Ct. 988,…
…vegetative state had right to removal of nasogastric feeding tubeunder Conroy subjective test, power of attorney and hearsay
…evidentiary rules? Can the prosecution continue to use, say, presentence reports, with their conclusions reflecting layers of hearsay
…to believe the suspect has committed a crime—traditionally has been decided by a magistrate in a nonadversary proceeding on hearsay and written testimony, and the Court has approved these informal modes of proof. "Guilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by
…but deny it to another a day, a week or a month younger. Yet that narrow line, and many others like it, must be drawn. The “hearsay
Supporting sources
A prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay when the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination about the statement, and the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a prior proceeding or deposition. The statement may then be admitted for its truth.
Supporting sources
Rigid application of hearsay rules may violate due process when it excludes trustworthy, critical exculpatory evidence and thereby deprives the defendant of a fair trial. The Constitution may require admission of such hearsay in those circumstances.
Supporting sources
A declarant is unavailable if the proponent cannot procure attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means, provided the proponent did not cause the unavailability. This showing is required for exceptions under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6).
Supporting sources
Due process permits some use of hearsay and relaxed evidentiary rules in military detention proceedings, but the government must still afford a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis before a neutral decisionmaker.
Supporting sources