Also known as: non-hearsay · non hearsay
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of out-of-court statements excluded from the hearsay definition under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d). The exclusion applies when the statement meets one of the conditions listed in the rule.
Nora Nash testified at trial that her manager directed her to falsify safety reports. Defense counsel implied on cross-examination that Nora invented the account after learning she would be fired. Nora's lawyer then offered a memo she wrote to human resources two weeks earlier repeating the same account. The court admitted the memo as nonhearsay because it predated the alleged motive to fabricate.
Nadia Novak identified the defendant in a lineup six months after the robbery. At trial she could not recall the basis for her identification but remained available for cross-examination. The prosecution offered the lineup identification as nonhearsay. The court admitted it because the rule requires only that the witness be subject to cross-examination about the statement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nikhil Narayan's expert testified that a DNA match supported his conclusion. The expert disclosed the contents of a lab report prepared by an unavailable analyst solely to explain the basis for the opinion. The court treated the report as nonhearsay because it was introduced only to show what the expert relied upon, not to prove the truth of the analyst's findings.
Nia Nkosi and her codefendant were charged with drug trafficking. The government offered a recorded call in which the codefendant told a supplier that Nkosi would handle payment the next day. The court admitted the call as nonhearsay because it was made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
A prior consistent statement is nonhearsay only when offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive and only if made before the alleged motive arose. The timing requirement prevents the statement from serving merely as a bootstrap to the witness's trial testimony.
Supporting sources
No. A prior identification remains admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) even if the witness cannot recall the reasons for the identification, provided the witness is subject to cross-examination about the statement at trial.
Supporting sources
Statements properly classified as nonhearsay do not trigger the Confrontation Clause because they are not offered for their truth. Courts therefore examine whether the statement serves a legitimate nonhearsay purpose before applying confrontation requirements.
Supporting sources
The proponent must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed, that the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered were members, and that the statement was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court may consider the statement itself along with independent evidence.
Supporting sources
…concluded that the trial court’s finding that a conspiracy existed was not clearly erroneous. Pp. 184–188. 3. The admission of nonhearsay evidence of a co-conspirator’s statement does not violate the Confrontation Clause. Tennessee v. Street , 471 U. S. 409. Pp. 188–189. 4. In determining the admissibility of a…