Also known as: non-hearsay evidence · nonhearsay · 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 category encompasses prior consistent statements made before an alleged motive to fabricate arose, prior identifications of a person, statements by a party-opponent, and statements by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Norman Nash testified at trial that Northern Manufacturing's foreman ordered unsafe scaffolding erected. Defense counsel implied on cross-examination that Norman had fabricated the account after being fired. Northern Manufacturing offered an email Norman sent to a coworker six months earlier describing the same order. The court admitted the email as nonhearsay because it predated the alleged motive.
Nora Nash was assaulted in a parking lot. At trial she could not recall the assailant's face but confirmed she had identified Neville Norton in a lineup shortly after the attack. The prosecution introduced the lineup identification through the detective who conducted it. The court admitted the evidence as nonhearsay even though Nora lacked present recollection of the reasons for her choice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nathaniel Newman and Noreen Nguyen were charged with conspiring to defraud investors. The government introduced a recorded call in which Nathaniel told a third party that the investment documents were falsified. The court admitted the call as nonhearsay because it occurred during and in furtherance of the charged conspiracy.
Nancy Nelson was prosecuted for sexual assault. The state's DNA expert testified that a laboratory report showed a male profile matching the defendant on the victim's swabs. The court admitted the expert's reference to the report as nonhearsay because it was offered only to explain the basis of the expert's opinion rather than to prove the profile's source.
A prior consistent statement is nonhearsay when offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive, provided the statement was made before the alleged motive arose. The timing requirement ensures the statement has probative value independent of the motive to lie.
Yes. A prior identification remains admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) even when the witness lacks current memory of the reasons for the identification, so long as the witness is available for cross-examination about the statement.
Admission of a coconspirator's statement as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) does not violate the Confrontation Clause when the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exemption. No independent inquiry into reliability is required beyond the rule's own requirements.
An expert may disclose the contents of an out-of-court report when the disclosure is offered solely to explain the basis of the expert's opinion rather than to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the report. The statements then function as nonhearsay basis evidence.
…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 co-conspirator’s…