Question 1

The hearsay rule simply states that hearsay is admissible unless provided for by exceptions in the Rules of Evidence

Accepted Answer

The hearsay rule generally states that hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless it falls under one of the exceptions provided by the Rules of Evidence.

Question 2

One of the primary reasons for the hearsay rule is to protect the jury from hearing unreliable out-of-court statements as evidence.

Accepted Answer

The hearsay rule is designed to exclude out-of-court statements made by someone not testifying at the trial, primarily because such statements cannot be cross-examined for their reliability and truthfulness, thus protecting the jury from potentially unreliable evidence.

Question 3

A prior statement by a witness, when offered under certain circumstances, may not constitute hearsay when offered in evidence at trial.

Accepted Answer

A prior statement by a witness can be considered non-hearsay if it meets certain criteria, such as being consistent with the witness's testimony and offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or if it is a statement of identification made after perceiving a person. These exceptions are recognized under the rules of evidence in many jurisdictions.

Question 4

An Admission by a Party-Opponent, when offered under certain circumstances, always constitutes hearsay when offered in evidence at trial.

Accepted Answer

An Admission by a Party-Opponent is considered a non-hearsay exception under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)), meaning it is not classified as hearsay when offered against the party who made the statement.

Question 5

For over a hundred years, the prevailing common-law rule was that a prior consistent statement introduced to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or motive was inadmissible if the statement had been made before the alleged fabrication or motive came into being, but admissible if made afterwards.

Accepted Answer

The prevailing common-law rule was that a prior consistent statement introduced to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or motive was generally inadmissible, regardless of whether it was made before or after the alleged fabrication or motive came into being. The rationale was that such statements were considered inherently self-serving and not probative of the truth. However, exceptions to this rule allowed for the admission of prior consistent statements made before the motive to fabricate arose, as they could be seen as more reliable indicators of truthfulness.

Question 6

Statements made by a party to a legal action do not constitute hearsay under the rationale that it should satisfy the trustworthiness concern, because the party can explain it if she chooses.

Accepted Answer

Statements made by a party to a legal action, when offered against that party, are not considered hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)). This is because the party has the opportunity to take the stand and explain or rebut the statement, thus addressing the concern of trustworthiness.

Question 7

A common example of an admission by party-opponent is a confession made by a defendant in a criminal action.

Accepted Answer

An admission by a party-opponent, under the rules of evidence, includes any statement made by a party to the current legal action that is against their interest, such as a confession by a defendant in a criminal case, which can be used as evidence without being considered hearsay.

Question 8

Statements of a real estate agent selling land on behalf of an owner to a prospective buyer may be admitted if owner of the land is a party to a subsequent lawsuit.

Accepted Answer

Statements made by a real estate agent, who is considered an agent of the owner in the context of selling property, can be admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence as admissions by a party-opponent if the owner is a party to a subsequent lawsuit, as these statements are made during the course and scope of the agent's employment.

Question 9

A statement is hearsay if offered against a party and was made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Accepted Answer

The statement is not considered hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) if it is made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy and is offered against a party who was a member of the conspiracy.

Question 10

When the answer of the witness contains any of the damaging hearsay, the opposing party may "move to strike"
the answer from the trial record.

Accepted Answer

The opposing party may indeed "move to strike" the answer from the trial record if it contains damaging hearsay, as hearsay is generally inadmissible in court unless it falls under certain exceptions. This is a procedural action to ensure that inadmissible or prejudicial statements do not affect the trial's outcome.

Question 11

Which of the following is not part of the test to determine hearsay?

Accepted Answer

The test for determining hearsay involves considering whether the statement was made out-of-court (A) and whether it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement (B). The truthfulness of the statement itself (C) is not part of the test for determining hearsay.

Question 12

The hearsay rule developed along with the evolution of the jury system in the late 1600s in the following country:

Accepted Answer

The hearsay rule, which excludes certain out-of-court statements from being admissible in court, developed in England alongside the evolution of the jury system in the late 1600s. This was part of the broader development of the common law system of justice.

Question 13

Where there are two or more parts to a declarant's statement, each must be examined separately to determine if it falls within the hearsay rule or one of its exceptions. This is called:

Accepted Answer

Hearsay within hearsay refers to a situation where a statement contains another statement, and each part must be separately considered to determine if it is hearsay and if it falls under any exceptions to the hearsay rule. This ensures that each layer of hearsay is admissible based on its own merits.

Question 14

Action that communicates a statement is called:

Accepted Answer

An assertion is an action or statement that communicates a statement or belief, which can be verbal or nonverbal.

Question 15

Proving what was said is true is called:

Accepted Answer

The term "Truth of the Matter Asserted" refers to the principle in evidence law where the focus is on proving the truthfulness of the statement itself, rather than on who made the statement or how it was conveyed. This is a key concept in distinguishing hearsay from direct evidence.

Question 16

Actions that do not involve speaking or writing are called:

Accepted Answer

Nonverbal conduct refers to actions that do not involve speaking or writing, encompassing gestures, facial expressions, and other forms of communication that do not use words.

Question 17

Witness testifies, "My husband told me that morning that he saw the defendant beat his child." Which of the following statements is not correct?

Accepted Answer

A) The statement is considered hearsay when it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the defendant beat his child) and would generally not be admissible for that purpose unless it meets a hearsay exception. It is not considered non-hearsay simply because it is offered to prove the act occurred.

Question 18

Witness testifies that "on January 2nd, the defendant said to me, 'Yesterday, I was at the city park.'" Which of the following statements is not correct?

Accepted Answer

Statement C is incorrect because if the statement is offered to show that the defendant spoke to the witness, it is not hearsay since it is not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Question 19

In hearsay analysis, a person who makes a statement is called:

Accepted Answer

The person who makes a statement that is then repeated or used in court is referred to as the "declarant."

Question 20

In this case, the defendant said that he was entrapped and wants to offer statements by a government informant as evidence of his inducement by the government to commit a crime. The court held that statements not offered as an assertion of a fact but, rather, as the fact of an assertion are not hearsay.

Accepted Answer

In United States v. Cantu, the court held that statements not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show that the statements were made, are not considered hearsay. This is relevant in situations like entrapment defenses where the fact that an inducement was made is in question, not the truth of the statements within that inducement.

Quiz 12: Exceptions to Hearsay