http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801
Admission of guilt may mean admission against interest, which applies only when the declarant is unavailable, but applies to non-parties. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule804
Actually, it’s defined as non-hearsay in most jurisdictions, if Person B is a party to the case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801
That’s why the Miranda warnings include the statement that:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436
If that’s true in King County, they ought to change their website:
Even if the King County OPD website missstates it’s policy, not every appointed counsel system offers appointed lawyers to those who can afford to hire one. For example,
http://www.circuit8.org/indigent/Indigent%20Process/Chapter27.52.pdf
and
http://www.sccid.sc.gov/indigent-defense-faq.cfm
Gideon v. Wainwright
There is a lot of variation appointed counsel systems, and some of the variations are more amenable to sliding scale fee arrangements than others. http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/58-2003/docs/pdf/59032.pdf
I guess I was the one who didn’t understand. Thanks for the correction.
Which is why I said, “If you’ve been arrested…”
I have to send a link to this linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyfN3dUluAY
It’s from Homicide: Life on the Street based on David Simon’s non-fiction Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. Well acted, it’s taken nearly verbatim from Simon’s riffing on what the homicide detectives have told him.
If anyone has missed either of those, please check them out.
Well, you were half right. I mean, in that specific situation (B is the defendant and A testifies that B said X), the statement would be excluded from the definition of hearsay, but the quote you were responding to was
which you were correct in thinking was an inaccurate statement. The fact that the person testifying is the person to whom an out-of-court statement was directed does not make the evidence non-hearsay. What makes the statement above non-hearsay, like Gfactor explained, is the fact that the person whom the statement is offered against is a party to the case, and only that fact – otherwise that scenario definitely fits the traditional hearsay definition. In other words, A testifying that B said X totally is hearsay if C is the one on trial, even though A is the one who heard the statement.
I can’t decide if this is too fine a point to bother making.
Oh, let’s get technical, since you’re asking. Hearsay is “an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted,” and it is excluded unless it falls into one of several exceptions (one of which we have seen above, the admission against interest). So, if I (well, not me, I’ve never done litigation, but I know the rules because I’m a geek that way) put Joe Blow on the stand to say, “Sarah Palin told me that Joe the Plumber is a total tool,” it is not admissible to prove that JtP is a total tool (a fact suitable for judicial notice, anyway). However, it is admissible to prove that Sarah Palin was conscious and capable of coherent speech at the time. See the difference?
(Incidentally, Jimmy Chitwood, I disagree with your statement that A’s testimony is not hearsay. It is hearsay, but it is admissible anyway, because it falls into a hearsay exception.)
It sounds as if the definition of “hearsay” is itself fluid. I certainly bow to Gfactor’s position that in the US, statements to a jail-house snitch wouldn’t be considered hearsay, but in Canada, it would.
Up here, the definition of hearsay is kept analytically distinct from the exceptions to the hearsay rule. An admission against interest and a confession are both hearsay; the question in a Canadian court is whether the statements are admissible under any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
An admission against interest is one such exception; a confession is a specialised sub-set of an admission against interest, but still a form of hearsay.
Right. It just so happens that the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence decided to set up a hearsay rule with a troica of carve outs:
-
Statements that meet the definition of hearsay, but are defined as non-hearsay.
-
Statements that meet the definition of hearsay, but are excepted from the rule excluding hearsay no matter what; and
-
Statements that meet the definition of hearsay, but are excepted only if the declarant is unavailable.
Here is the definition of hearsay: “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801
801(d) excepts two sorts of statements from this general definition. In other words, they’d count as hearsay if rule (d) didn’t say they weren’t hearsay:
(1) Prior statement by witness
(2)Admission by party-opponent (while the name of the rule says “admission” it really applies to *statements *by parties, agents, and co-conspirators.
Also, the definition of unavalability can be counterintuitive:
FRE 804
Some states have copied the Federal Rules of Evidence, others have not. E.g., http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0626/HRS_0626-0001-0803.htm (party admission is a hearsay exception)
This dosen’t answer your question, but it is well worth pointing out. If a cop ever says to you: “You have the right to remain silent.”, ZIP IT! Even if you’re innocent, ZIP IT! Say only: “I would like to speak with an attorney.” Once you start talking, there are a hundred different ways you can misspeak. When the cops say “ANYTHING you say can and WILL be used against you…” they mean it.
Like Gfactor was saying, an admission by a party opponent falls under 801(d), which isn’t technically an exception in that it’s hearsay, but it’s OK, but rather it is completely exempted from being hearsay at all. Technically, what 801(d) says is that that statement specifically is not hearsay. Then 803 has the actual exceptions.
I’m not saying it’s especially important that some uses are “exempted” and thus aren’t hearsay at all, while some uses are hearsay, but are exceptions from the general rule that hearsay can’t be admitted, but the rules do contain that distinction. There’s hearsay, then there’s things that specifically aren’t hearsay although you might think they are, then there are things which are hearsay but get special exceptions to the general rule.