Also known as: hearsay declarants · declarant
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The person who made an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Hilda Hernandez submitted an affidavit in support of a summary judgment motion describing events she learned only from a colleague's report. The opposing party objected that the statements could not be presented in admissible form. The court struck the affidavit because the declarant lacked personal knowledge of the facts recited.
Hamid Hassan testified at trial that he saw the defendant at the scene. Defense counsel implied on cross-examination that Hassan had recently fabricated the account to obtain a plea deal. The prosecution introduced Hassan's earlier consistent statement made before any motive arose, showing the declarant had not recently invented the story.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hana Huang gave a sworn statement to police describing threats made by the defendant. The statement was made during a formal station-house interview. At trial the prosecution offered the statement after Huang became unavailable, but the court excluded it because the defendant had never had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Hannah Hughes identified the defendant in a lineup shortly after the robbery. At trial Hughes could not recall the face, but the prosecution introduced her earlier identification statement. The court admitted the statement because it identified a person the declarant had perceived earlier.
Hana Hashimoto was prepared to testify against the defendant at trial. The defendant arranged for her to be threatened into leaving the country. The court ruled that the defendant could not rely on Hashimoto's resulting unavailability to exclude her prior statements because the proponent had wrongfully caused the absence.
Holly Hayes told a friend she planned to travel to Chicago the next day. After Hayes disappeared, the prosecution offered the statement to prove she had gone to Chicago. The court admitted the statement because it reflected the declarant's then-existing intent and tended to show she later acted in accordance with that plan.
Any party may attack the credibility of a hearsay declarant with the same impeachment evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness. Rule 806 permits proof of bias, prior inconsistent statements, and specific instances of conduct bearing on truthfulness, subject to the same limits that apply to live witnesses such as the prohibition on extrinsic evidence under Rule 608(b).
Supporting sources
No. The affidavit or declaration must be made on personal knowledge. A statement based solely on what the declarant was told by others fails the requirement and may be stricken on objection under Rule 56(c)(2).
Supporting sources
The prosecution must prove both that the declarant is unavailable and that the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Without the prior opportunity for cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause bars admission regardless of any hearsay exception or perceived reliability.
Supporting sources
The statement must be consistent with the declarant's testimony and must predate the alleged motive to fabricate. Statements made after the motive arose do not rebut the charge under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i).
Supporting sources
…evidence, but about how reliability can best be determined. The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is unavailable and the statement bears indicia of reliability. Where testimonial statements are involved, the Framers clearly intended to exclude such statements absent a prior opportunity…