Thomas wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Michael's brother testified concerning Terri's statements. Terri is the declarant. Terri's alleged out-of-court statements were offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This is hearsay.
I disagree. "The truth of the matter asserted" concerns what wishes Terri Schiavo has expressed. The declarants are the Schindlers and the Schiavos, all of whom claimed to have first-hand knowledge of what wishes she had expressed. All of them testified in court, under oath.
You might disagree, but you are not correct. Both the Schiavos' and the Schindlers' testimony about what Terri said
out of court concerning her desires to be or not be sustained on life-support, is
clearly hearsay. The intention of offering the testimony is to prove that the prior statement of Terri is
true, that she in fact did, or did not, wish to be sustained on life-support. The fact that they provided this hearsay evidence under oath does not render it
not hearsay. Since it is hearsay, there must be an exception in order to admit it.
Quote:UPDATE: I just checked another source by
searching for "hearsay" in Findlaw's legal dictionary. Up came three entries: "hearsay", "hearsay rule", and "evidence". The "evidence" entry, as far as it pertains to hearsay, merely repeats the "hearsay" entry. Here are the definitions given in the two other entries:
Webster's legal dictionary, as published on Findlaw's website, wrote:hearsay: a statement made out of court and not under oath which is offered as proof that what is stated is true.
Comment: By this definition, the Schindlers and the Schiavo's testimony was not hearsay with regard to what Terri Schiavo
said. But since they couldn't read Terri's mind, Debra might argue that their testimonies were hearsay with regard to what was going on
inside Terri Schiavo's mind.
No ... it is hearsay. The statement made out of court is Terri's. The statement is offered to prove what Terri said was true. The Schiavos testified Terri said she would not want to live with life-support. The purpose of offering that
out of court statement by Terri is to prove that, in fact, Terri would
not want to live with life-support. It's not a question of "reading minds"; the rule deals with excluding the out-of-court statement.
Quote:Note, however, the next entry:
Webster's legal dictionary, as published on Findlaw's website, wrote:hearsay rule: a rule barring the admission of hearsay as evidence
Note: The hearsay rule is stated in Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence because of the unavailability of cross-examination to test the accuracy of the statement. There are numerous exceptions to the rule, however, mainly for statements made under circumstances that assure reliability. Statements made spontaneously, for example, or as part of a business or medical record are inherently trustworthy and thus excepted from the rule. A statement need not be made orally for purposes of the hearsay rule. Written statements, gestures, and even motion pictures are included. (the italics are Findlaw's/Webster's)
So even under Debra's theory, this case would have fallen under the "numerous exceptions". Terri Schiavo's statements in question were made spontaneously, which is explicitly mentioned as one of the "circumstances that assure reliability".
You are correct that there are many exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. A "contemporaneous statement" might be admitted if the statement is made while the principal event is occurring, but must be also made while the declarant is under the stress or excitement cause by such perception. This is often the case of someone witnessing a car accident. The declaration must be so clearly connected with the principal occurrence that it really forms a part of the occurrence. It's often referred to as the
res gestae exception. Courts have considerable discretion in admitting statements under this exception. I've not heard that the court relied on this exception in admitting this hearsay evidence.
