Also known as:multiple-level hearsay · multiple levels hearsay · multiple levels of hearsay · hearsay within hearsay · double hearsay
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A compound statement containing multiple layers of out-of-court assertions offered for their truth. Each layer must independently qualify as nonhearsay or fit a hearsay exception or exclusion for the combined statement to be admissible.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Yacht Storm Report Chain
Meredith Maxwell sued Marathon Logistics after her yacht was damaged in a storm. A dockhand testified that the harbor master told him a barge captain reported a tug operator saying the company dispatcher admitted ordering the tug out despite a severe storm warning. The court admitted the testimony only after confirming each layer of the chain satisfied an applicable exception or exclusion.
Wildlife Center Admission Layers
Michael Miller sued Wild Canid Survival and Research Center after a wolf escaped and injured him. A staff member testified that a supervisor relayed an internal report in which a researcher recounted an executive's statement acknowledging prior escape risks. The court examined each successive statement in the chain to determine whether it qualified independently under an exception or exclusion.
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.588 F.2d 626 (1978)
On March 23, 1973, three-year-old Daniel Mahlandt was sent by his mother to retrieve his older brother from a neighbor's home on an adjoining street. His path took him along a walkway next to the Poos residence, where a five-foot chain-link fence separated the walkway from the area in which the wolf Sophie was chained with a six-foot chain.
Sophie was an eleven-month-old wolf born at the St. Louis Zoo and later transferred to the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. Kenneth Poos, the Center's Director of Education, had been keeping Sophie at his home to take her to schools and institutions for educational programs about wolves. The evening before the incident, Sophie had jumped the fence and attacked a beagle running along the fence.
A neighbor who was ill in bed heard a child's screams, went to his window, and saw a boy lying on his back within the enclosure with a wolf straddling him. Within about fifteen seconds the neighbor saw seventeen-year-old Clarke Poos run around the house, get the wolf off the boy, and carry the child away. Clarke found Daniel lying inside the enclosure about three feet from the fence, with Sophie standing back the length of her chain and wailing. Daniel's mother reported that Clarke told her a wolf had gotten Danny and he was dying, though Clarke denied making that statement. Kenneth Poos arrived home while Daniel and his mother were still in the kitchen.
Within an hour after arriving home, Poos went to Washington University and left a note on the door of Center president Owen Sexton stating that Sophie had bitten a child that came into the backyard. Later that same day Poos found Sexton at the Tyson Research Center and told him that Sophie had bitten a child that day. A meeting of the directors of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. was held on April 4, 1973, at which Mr. Poos was not present. The minutes of that meeting recorded a great deal of discussion about the legal aspects of the incident of Sophie biting the child.
Daniel sustained lacerations of the face, left thigh, left calf, and right thigh, along with abrasions and bruises of the abdomen and chest. No witness saw or knew how Daniel was injured, and examinations of the fence and the wounds raised questions about whether the injuries were caused by the fence rather than by the wolf. The case was tried to a jury in federal district court, which returned a verdict for the defendants. The trial judge had excluded the note, the oral statement to Sexton, and the reference in the corporate minutes on the ground that none of the declarants had personal knowledge of the underlying facts. The matter reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from those three evidentiary rulings.
When is multiple level hearsay admissible in federal court?
The combined statement is admissible only when every layer of the nested out-of-court assertions independently qualifies as nonhearsay or fits a hearsay exception or exclusion.
Supporting sources
Does one valid exception for an inner statement automatically admit the entire chain?
No. Each layer must satisfy its own exception or exclusion on its own terms. Failure of any single layer renders the whole inadmissible for its truth.
Supporting sources
How does a court analyze a four-layer statement offered through a witness?
The court isolates each out-of-court assertion in the chain and requires the proponent to establish a separate basis for admissibility for every link before the composite statement reaches the jury.
Supporting sources
What happens if an outer layer lacks any exception even though inner layers qualify?
The entire statement is excluded. The rule requires independent qualification at every level and does not permit an inner exception to cure a deficient outer transmission.
Supporting sources
…rule, it should be. He feels that is mandated by Rules 805 and 403. Rule 805 recites, in effect, that a statement containing
hearsay within hearsay
is admissible if each part of the statement falls
within
an exception to the
hearsay
rule. Rule 805, however, deals only with
hearsay
exceptions. A statement based on the personal knowledge…
EvidenceHearsay and circumstances of its admissibility · Hearsay within hearsayNEXTGENIntermediate