Also known as: FRE 801 · Fed. R. Evid. 801 · Federal Rule of Evidence 801 · hearsay · hearsay definition
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Federal Rule of Evidence that defines hearsay as a statement the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing and that a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rule also identifies certain prior statements by testifying witnesses and statements by party opponents that qualify as nonhearsay even when they meet the definition.
Renata Russo testified at trial that she never discussed the contract terms with the defendant. Defense counsel then sought to introduce a transcript of her deposition in which she described the same terms in detail. Because the deposition statement meets the conditions of Rule 801(d)(1)(A), the court treated it as nonhearsay and allowed its use for both impeachment and as substantive evidence.
Roland Rhodes faced trial on assault charges after police interviewed his neighbor at the station. The neighbor described seeing Rhodes strike the victim but later became unavailable. The prosecution offered the recorded interview. The court excluded the statement under the Confrontation Clause because it was testimonial and Rhodes had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ravi Reddy sued his former employer for wrongful termination. He sought to introduce an email his supervisor sent to human resources stating that Reddy had falsified time records. The court ruled the email hearsay under Rule 801(c) because it was made outside court and was offered to prove the truth of the falsification claim.
Raymond Ramos, a U.S. citizen detained as an enemy combatant, challenged his continued detention before a military tribunal. The government offered intelligence reports containing out-of-court statements from confidential sources. The tribunal permitted the hearsay under relaxed evidentiary standards while still affording Ramos a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for his detention.
Rachel Ramirez testified at trial that she saw the defendant leave the scene before the accident. The prosecutor introduced her earlier grand-jury testimony, given under oath, in which she stated the defendant remained at the scene. Because the grand-jury statement satisfied Rule 801(d)(1)(A), the court admitted it as nonhearsay.
Riley Rivera was convicted of robbery after the trial court excluded a third party's out-of-court confession that he alone committed the crime. The excluded statement was reliable and critical to Rivera's defense. On appeal the court held that rigid application of the hearsay rule violated due process by depriving Rivera of a fair opportunity to present a defense.
A statement qualifies as hearsay when the declarant does not make it while testifying at the current trial or hearing and a party offers it to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rule requires both an out-of-court statement and an assertive purpose.
A prior inconsistent statement is nonhearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination and the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a prior proceeding or deposition. The rule supplies an exemption that removes qualifying statements from the hearsay definition entirely.
Even if a statement satisfies a hearsay exemption under Rule 801, the Confrontation Clause still bars its admission against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The constitutional requirement operates independently of the evidentiary definition.
Rule 801(d)(2) exempts statements offered against an opposing party when made by the party, adopted by the party, or made by an agent or coconspirator within the scope of the relationship. These statements are defined as nonhearsay regardless of whether they were made under oath.
…who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not. Even if the Sixth Amendment is not solely concerned with testimonial hearsay, that does not mean that it has no application to such statements. This Court has long held that the right of confrontation does not apply to out-of-court statements that are not offered to…