Also known as: hearsay rules · rule against hearsay
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that excludes out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless the statement falls within a recognized exception or exclusion. The rule rests on the premise that such statements lack the safeguards of oath and cross-examination. Exceptions exist when the statement carries sufficient indicia of reliability or when the declarant is unavailable.
Hazel Hoffman was charged with fraud after a key supplier vanished. At a prior deposition the supplier had testified under oath that Hoffman never received certain invoices. When the supplier later became unavailable, the prosecutor offered the deposition transcript to prove Hoffman knew the invoices were false. The court admitted the transcript because the declarant was unavailable and the testimony had been subject to cross-examination.
Henry Harrison stood trial for robbery. A third party had confessed to the crime in a detailed, reliable statement that directly exonerated Harrison. The state hearsay rule barred the confession because the declarant was unavailable. The court nevertheless admitted the statement, holding that rigid exclusion would deprive Harrison of a fair opportunity to present a defense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hannah Hughes sued Haven Medical after her husband died during a drug trial. A nurse told a coordinator that the principal investigator had reported an executive admission about cardiac risks. The coordinator testified to the chain of statements. The court examined each layer separately and admitted the testimony only after confirming that every constituent statement satisfied an exception.
Harriet Hamilton sought to introduce a detailed safety report prepared by a now-deceased engineer at Helix Biotech. The report was not covered by any listed exception yet carried strong circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and was more probative than other available evidence on the issue of known risks. The court admitted the report under the residual exception after weighing the totality of circumstances.
Hassan Hakim was prosecuted for assault. He sought to introduce evidence that extreme intoxication prevented formation of the required mental state. The state rule excluded the evidence as hearsay. The court held that the exclusion did not violate due process because the rule did not prevent Hakim from presenting a complete defense on the facts presented.
Horizon Dynamics resisted a subpoena for internal memoranda containing out-of-court statements by employees. The special prosecutor argued the statements were admissible as party admissions. The court reviewed the materials in camera and confirmed that any hearsay objections would be resolved at trial under the applicable rules rather than by blanket exclusion.
The rule bars the statement when it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and does not qualify for an exception or exclusion. The absence of an oath and cross-examination at the time the statement was made supplies the core rationale for exclusion.
Supporting sources
Each layer must independently satisfy an exception or exclusion. If any single layer fails, the entire composite statement is inadmissible under the hearsay rule.
Supporting sources
Due process may require admission when exclusion of reliable, critical exculpatory evidence would deprive the defendant of a fair opportunity to present a defense. The inquiry focuses on whether the evidentiary rule, applied mechanistically, undermines the right to rebut the prosecution's case.
Supporting sources
Unavailability opens certain exceptions that otherwise would not apply. The proponent must show the declarant cannot be produced despite reasonable efforts and did not procure the unavailability to prevent testimony.
Supporting sources
…core concerns. An off-hand, overheard remark might be unreliable evidence and thus a good candidate for exclusion under hearsay rules, but it bears little resemblance to the civil-law abuses the Confrontation Clause targeted. On the other hand, ex parte examinations might sometimes be admissible under modern hearsay…