Also known as: hearsay rule · hearsay · rule against hearsay · hearsay exception
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A collection of evidentiary rules that generally exclude out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rules identify when a statement qualifies as hearsay and specify exclusions and exceptions that permit admission despite the general prohibition.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Holly Hayes sues her neighbor Hugo Hart for property damage after a tree falls. At trial Holly offers testimony that a bystander told her the tree had been leaning for weeks. The court excludes the testimony because the bystander made the statement outside court and Holly offers it to prove the tree's condition.
The prosecution charges Heidi Henderson with assault. It seeks to introduce a recorded statement the victim gave to police describing the attack. The court excludes the statement because the victim is unavailable and Heidi never had an opportunity to cross-examine her about the testimonial account.
Harper Hill testifies at trial that she saw Henry Harrison take the money. The defense offers her earlier sworn deposition statement that she saw nothing. The court admits the deposition because Harper is testifying and subject to cross-examination and the statement is inconsistent with her trial testimony.
The government detains Hazel Hoffman as an enemy combatant inside the United States. At the hearing the government offers an intelligence report containing statements from third parties about her activities. The tribunal admits the report under relaxed evidentiary standards tailored to military exigencies while still affording Hoffman a meaningful opportunity to contest the facts.
The prosecution offers a statement by a witness who died before trial. The defense objects on hearsay grounds. The court admits the statement after finding the witness unavailable because the proponent could not procure attendance by reasonable means and the statement fits a recognized exception for unavailable declarants.
The defense seeks to introduce a third party's out-of-court confession that exonerates the defendant. The trial court excludes the statement under the hearsay rules. On appeal the court holds that due process requires admission because the statement is reliable and its exclusion would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
A statement qualifies as hearsay when the declarant makes it outside the current trial or hearing and a party offers it to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rules also require that the declarant intended the oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct as an assertion.
Supporting sources
The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Traditional hearsay exceptions do not substitute for this constitutional requirement when the evidence is testimonial.
…statement was inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, it was admissible under a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception for statements against penal interest and that admitting it did not violate the Constitution. We granted certiorari to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the…
…matter. [^maj-14]: Such statements are declarations by a party defendant that "would surmount all objections based on the hearsay rule
…circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity' and the basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Illinois v. Gates , 462 U. S., at 238. Moreover, in evaluating the…
…jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis added.) Hearsay rules, see Fed.
…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 statement is non-hearsay when the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination, and the statement is inconsistent with the testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a prior proceeding or deposition.
Supporting sources
A declarant is unavailable when the proponent cannot procure attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means, or when the declarant is dead or suffers a then-existing infirmity. The proponent must not have caused the unavailability to prevent testimony.
Supporting sources
Yes. Strict application of hearsay rules violates due process when it excludes reliable and critical exculpatory evidence that would deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The Constitution may require admission of trustworthy hearsay in such circumstances.
Supporting sources