Also known as: Rule 801 · Rule 802 · FRE 801 · FRE 802 · hearsay rule · hearsay definitions · rule against hearsay
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule 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 renders hearsay inadmissible unless the statement qualifies as nonhearsay under an exclusion or falls within a recognized exception.
Roland Rhodes testified at trial that he never observed loose scaffolding. The opposing party sought to introduce his earlier recorded interview contradicting that testimony. The court required that Roland first receive an opportunity to explain the inconsistency before admitting the interview to impeach credibility.
Ruby Rivera could not be located despite reasonable efforts to secure her testimony. Her prior sworn deposition describing the defective scaffolding was offered against the defendant. The court admitted the deposition because Ruby's unavailability triggered the exception for former testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rita Russell offered a report containing an engineer's out-of-court statement that a supervisor had directed unsafe practices. Each layer of the report was evaluated separately. The court admitted the document only after confirming that both the engineer's statement and the report itself satisfied an exclusion or exception.
Robert Rivera introduced a supervisor's out-of-court admission that safety protocols had been ignored. The defense then offered the supervisor's earlier contradictory statements to impeach credibility. The court permitted the impeachment even though the supervisor never testified at trial.
Renee Rogers offered a farmhand's text message describing an illegal pesticide order. No standard exception applied, yet the message carried strong guarantees of trustworthiness and was more probative than other available evidence. The court admitted the text under the residual exception after finding both conditions satisfied.
The party must demonstrate that the declarant did not make the statement while testifying at the current trial or hearing and that the statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Both elements must be satisfied before the statement is classified as hearsay.
Supporting sources
The declarant must testify and be subject to cross-examination, the statement must be consistent with the testimony, and it must be offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or to rehabilitate credibility after an attack on another ground. The statement must predate any alleged motive to fabricate when offered for that purpose.
Supporting sources
Rule 802 renders hearsay inadmissible unless an exclusion or exception applies. Statements meeting the criteria in Rule 801(d) are defined as nonhearsay and therefore fall outside the prohibition of Rule 802 altogether.
Supporting sources
The witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party must be given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, unless the court orders otherwise. This sequencing requirement does not apply to opposing-party statements under Rule 801(d)(2).
Supporting sources
…position at trial, perhaps by seeking to introduce their out-of-court statements under the co-conspirator exemption from the hearsay rule.) In response to the Government's argument, petitioner's reply brief claimed that his argument is actually the narrower one that we now consider, i.e. , that, as a matter of law, Moreno…