Talk:Hearsay in United States law

video edits

Last 2 videos are unrelated to hearsay evidence. How do we delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgordski (talk • contribs) 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

new edits

I removed the 'exclusionary rule' example for two reasons. First, whether something is subject to the United States exclusionary rule does not hinge on it being hearsay. Both hearsay and non-hearsay are equally subject to the exclusionary rule. Since this this is a hearsay article, I felt we should stick to the subject at hand. Second, the example given was incorrect. The officer heard the cries of help PRIOR to entering the home, not AFTER. Even if his forced entry to the home violated the constitutional rights of the Defendant and thus invoked the exclusionary rule, that would not exclude the victim's cries of help from evidence. (one of the authors)

I also removed the civil lawsuit example. In most jurisdictions, the rule of evidence will be the same whether a trial is a civil or criminal trial. The 'prior consistent statement' example given for the civil trial, would also apply with equal force in a criminal trial. (one of the autors)

Good article, but the sentence "Generally speaking hearsay is a concept that developed in the common law legal tradition in the context of the adversarial system of decision making" seems odd, coming as it does at the very end of the article. Seems like it should appear somewhere near the beginning. - dcljr 19:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article must be a shade above retarded and should be disbarred; that is, if he is a member of some state bar, which I seriously doubt. I fixed the Business records entry and the one concerning Admissions (which any lawyer will tell you is non-hearsay, not a hearsay exception).

IN RESPONSE: Part of the challenge of writing a legal article for Wikipedia is that in the United States alone there are 51 vastly different legal jurisdictions with different definitions and applications of hearsay. Even though most states use a standardized version of evidentiary rules, their appellate courts will often have different interpretations of how to apply hearsay. For example, some states consider admissions of party opponents to be non-hearsay, while others consider it to be hearsay, but allow it to be admitted into evidence as an exception. Another example, which I attempted to clarify in the article: not all jurisdictions require the records custodian to testify prior to the business records being admitted into evidence. Some merely require someone with knowledge of the records to testify, even if that person does not handle the records in question on a daily basis. Finally, it should be noted that the phrase, "...if the proper foundation is laid when the evidence is introduced into evidence", is, from a technically point of view, is at best redundant and at worst inaccurate. Something is not 'evidence' until it has been admitted into evidence. 'Evidence', from a legal point of view, is only that information which the Judge has admitted at trial and is allowing the trier of fact to consider. I therefore changed it to: "if the proper foundation is laid when the DOCUMENT is introduced into evidence". Your point on police records and business exception is well taken, however, and I clarified and expanded on this point.(one of the authors)

Someone should standardise this article under the Federal Rules of Evidence, OR at least illustrate the distinctions between the various state laws of evidence where they differ from the Federal Rules. As it is now, there is no telling what rules you are using.CelineDionFan82 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Crawford Decision

I think the new Supreme Court decision Crawford (cite unknown, but 2004) should also be discussed. I'm a fledling evidence student (exam on Tue) -- and I think this is a nice overview of hearsay. Nonetheless, given the right to confrontation embodied in Scalia's decision, it'd be worth adding a paragraph about the Crawford decision.

SCOTUS opinions

oral arguments in Crawford v. Washington

Decision

-- Dominus 14:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Difference with civil law countries

As far as I know, in France (civil law country), having X say that he heard Y say Z is not accepted as a proof that Z is true. It is accepted as corroboratory evidence (i.e. something that adds to the credibility of something that is proved otherwise) but not as as a proof of Z. The logical defense, when faced with such allegations, is to ask why Y was not called as a witness. David.Monniaux 12:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

assaulting a partially a victim

The sentence

Believing that there is a crime in progress,the officer kicks the front door down and enters the home to discover the perpetrator/homeowner assaulting a partially a victim.

should be fixed; but I'm not sure what the wikipedian who wrote it was trying to say. Pretzelpaws 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Probably meant to say a partially nude victim... so I fixed the hypo up completely. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:33, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

limited to federal rules

is this article limited to the US federal rules? i believe there are some US jurisdictions where a party admission is not considered non-hearsay. Streamless 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Could really use...well...see the title. Eyeball kid 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

English law

I wrote an article on Hearsay in English Law - I spent some working out any way that it could be incorporated into this one, but the complexity of dealing with completely different legal approaches (even if ostensibly similar) led me to just writing a fresh one, with appropriate links. Feedback is welcome! Hacienda 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this article is called 'Hearsay' rather than 'Hearsay in US law'? 144.138.137.122 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Non Hearsay

The entry for prior consistent statements might be misleading in that it appears to limit the Federal Rules' definition of non hearsay statements to just prior consistent statements. The Federal Rules consider prior inconsistent statements non hearsay as well.

jpm

I have made some modifications to the article to try to correct this. Yours, Famspear 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the next part of this article I take issue with is the following:

Subject to two classes of "exemptions," this definition classifies a statement as hearsay if the statement meets two requirements: (1) the statement must be extra-judicial (i.e. not made by this witness in this proceeding). (2) The statement must be offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts if anything.

Will the author of this statement please enumerate what they believe the two "classes of 'exemptions'" mentioned in this statement in fact are? These are not enumerated in the article near this sentence, making it vague and nebulous and speculative as to the statement's accuracy. Thank you. Supervox2113 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Under FRE 801, there are two exemptions from what would otherwise be hearsay: a declarant-witness’s prior statement (under certain circumstances), and an opposing party’s statement (also under certain circumstances). FRE 801(d)(1) and (2). Adhocusername (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Major problems with this article

I am too busy with other parts of WP to fix it, but I want to set this out so perhaps a nonlawyer can take a stab at it:

• Hearsay is not a proper noun. Therefore it should NOT be capitalized at every occurrence.
• Same for non-hearsay.
• Ohio v. Roberts was overridden by Crawford v. Washington, so it should not even be mentioned here, or it should be mentioned only in passing. (comment: This is actually incorrect, Crawford only partially overruled Roberts, aspects of the decision pertaining to non-testimonial hearsay and the confrontation clause are still good law)
• The case names should be italicized.
• The examples given are unnecessarily wordy.
• The entire article is so disorganized and poorly written that it appears to have been based upon the outline of a C student at a fourth-tier law school. --Coolcaesar 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the article needs a major rewrite. The latter comment doesn't belong on this page. Plus it makes you sound like a real jerk.--Lindsay (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Examples

Previously posted (old): Reading the example given (with Slayer and the policeman), I believe some misconceptions are being purveyed. Firstly, I believe the statement would fall under the exception for excited utterances and (perhaps) dying declarations. But more importantly, if the victim survived, wouldn't she be able to testify as to her own statement in court, thus allowing it to be entered. I'm no expert, so it'd be great if someone informed me if I am right, or why I am wrong (so that we can make Wikipedia as accurate as possible). -- Jasper 124c41+ 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jasper 124c41+: Here is the language you are referencing:

In the first trial, the issue is whether Slayer attempted to kill Monica. Officer Friday is asked to testify to what he heard Monica scream from inside the house, i.e., "Help, Slayer is trying to kill me!". This statement would be hearsay. Officer Friday is being asked to testify to what Monica said to prove that Slayer attempted to murder Monica. Unless the attorney can show that this statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, the factfinder (the judge or jury) will never be allowed to consider Monica's statement.

What the article is saying -- correctly -- is that Monica's statement is hearsay. The fact that her statement may fall under one or more of the hearsay exceptions does not change the fact that it is hearsay, period.

The article is not saying that the statement does not fall under one of the exceptions; indeed, the sentence beginning with "Unless the attorney can show..." is pointing out that Monica's statement may well fall under one of those exceptions. The point is that: (1) whether the statement is hearsay, and (2) whether the statement is admissible because it also falls under one of the exceptions, are two separate questions.

Next, if Monica survives and testifies in court, she might not need to have her own hearsay statement admitted into evidence, anyway. She can instead testify as to what she saw at the time of the attack (such as, "I saw Slayer break into the house, and then he started stabbing me with the knife", or whatever). Monica's out of court statements made at the time of Slayer's attack are still hearsay, even though Monica is now in court, and those statements are still subject to the restrictions on admissibility described in the article.

If you read the article again, you should see that statements that come under hearsay exceptions are still hearsay, while statements that come under hearsay exemptions (sometimes called hearsay exclusions) are not hearsay.

If a statement is hearsay (if it's an out of court statement offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted and it doesn't qualify under a hearsay exemption/exclusion) then it is hearsay -- even if that statement also happens to fall under one of the hearsay exceptions.

The purpose of the "hearsay exception" rule is to say, basically, "Yes, this statement is hearsay, but it is being admitted even though it is hearsay.

I don't think there are any errors in the "Monica" example in the article. I hope this clears it up a bit. Yours, Famspear 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Will the author of the following sentence please expound on its meaning:

"Put another way, if the probative value of the statement depends on the credibility of the person who made it, that statement is necessarily offered for the purpose of proving its truth." --This sentence appears in the article and I do not believe it is necessarily true. In fact, I am quite certain that it is never true. However, I would like to hear an explanation from the author or someone else who may understand its meaning. Absent that, I intend to delete it from the article.Supervox2113 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Supervox2113: The nature of your objection is unclear. Please give an example of a situation where the statement would be incorrect or untrue. Famspear (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear, no problem. Lets say John Doe is in a civil commitment proceeding to determine whether he is dangerous and insane. Witness x testifies against John, stating that witness y told witness x that John said "I'm being attacked by Jane Doe and must kill her!". Naturally, John's credibility in making the statement is an issue, as is the credibility of both y and x in repeating it. Yet, the statement is not offered to prove whether or not Jane was in fact trying to kill John, or whether John in fact had to kill her. Rather, the existence of the statement is circumstantial evidence of John's state of mind at the time he was charged as insane. Thus, the credibility of several witnesses are in question (as to whether or not the statement was in fact ever uttered -- which will have an effect on the outcome of John's proceeding), but no one cares whether or not the content of the assertion is in fact true. The point is, in every trial, the credibility of the witnesses are an issue -- that is the whole point of the 6th amendment -- yet not every statement a witness offers is for the truth of the matter asserted. In terms of an absolute ratio, the converse is probably the more common occurance. For example, the statement above is akin to saying: every time one is hot, one must necessarily be standing in the desert. This statement, while occassionaly true, is probably more often untrue than not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Supervox2113: I'm not sure, but I think your example may have defeated your argument. First, let's recap: In your example, John Doe is the "declarant" - he is the person whose out-of-court statement is being "quoted." On the facts you gave, I would argue that John's credibility is not at issue with respect to the admission of that particular out-of-court statement. In other words, since we are not offering John's statement as evidence for the purpose of proving that Jane was actually trying to kill John, the credibility of John in making that particular statement is not the issue. In this situation, we are instead trying to determine whether John is mentally competent, dangerous, insane, etc. The truth or falsity of John's statement will be evaluated using other evidence -- such as eyewitnesses who say "We have been with both John and Jane for years, and we have never seen any hint that Jane is trying to kill John."

I think you might be confused by the fact that John's credibility -- that is, his believability is in fact "an overall issue" in a civil commitment proceeding. Obviously, the fact that a person says crazy, incredible things is relevant in determining whether he is insane. The problem is: John's credibility is not an issue with respect to the purpose for which this particular statement is being offered as evidence. We need to focus on the particular reason for this statement.

Now, let's look at the statement again:

"Put another way, if the probative value of the statement depends on the credibility of the person who made it, that statement is necessarily offered for the purpose of proving its truth."

In this case, purpose of offering John's out-of-court statement as evidence is to show that John makes wacky statements - as evidence of his "insaneness" or whatever. In offering this in evidence, we are not concerned with John's credibility. That is, we are not concerned with whether the statement is true or false, or whether John is believable in making that statement. We are just trying to give an example of a crazy statement he made. Instead, we will offer other evidence to show why the statement is false (and therefore, why John is not credible, in an effort to show he is insane, etc.).

Now, let's take a similar statement - but with other parties and a completely different set of facts. Suppose Mary is accused of trying to kill Susan. We introduce a witness who says "I heard Susan yell, 'Mary is trying to kill me and I must kill her' at the time of the attack." In this case, if we are offering that statement for the specific purpose of trying to prove that Mary was trying to kill Susan, that statement will be hearsay (and it may or may not be admissible). In this case, the credibility of Susan herself is at issue.

In determining whether the credibility of the declarant is at issue, you have to look at the specific purpose for which that particular statement is being offered as evidence.

So, getting back to "John": The mere fact that the credibility of John is an overall issue in the civil commitment case does not mean that John's credibility is an issue with respect to the particular statement that you are talking about. In other words, in the overall case, we may indeed need to prove that John was mistaken in believing that Jane was trying to kill him. And John's credibility may therefore be an issue in the overall case, in showing that he has no credibility and is in fact insane. But John's credibility is NOT an issue with respect to the purpose for offering this particular statement as evidence.

Thoughts? Famspear (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a follow-up, you are correct to say that in any trial, the credibility of witnesses is an issue. But that is not what the article is talking about. The article is talking about the credibility of the declarant -- the person whose out-of-court statement is being quoted by a witness. The declarant himself/herself might not even be called as a witness in the case (that is, he or she might not be called to the stand in the court room). And I agree with your comment that not every statement a witness offers is for the truth of the matter asserted. The problem is that I think this weakens your argument rather than strengthening it.

Stated another way: If the probative value of the declarant's out of court statement depends on the credibility of the declarant, that out-of-court statement is necessarily being offered for the specific purpose of proving the truth of that statement.

Maybe it should be turned around to say: If the out-of-court statement is being offered for the specific purpose of proving the truth of what the statement says, then the probative value of that statement depends (at least in part) on the credibility of the declarant who made that out-of-court statement.

Thoughts? Famspear (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1: Supervox's example of John Doe's civil committment is flawed; An out of court stateemnt by a party is admissible whether to prove the truth of the matter asserted or not. The evidence would be admitted over a frivilous hearsay objection - the weakest possible grounds being nonhearsay - circumstantial evidence of mental state (cf. Fed. R. Evid. 801), but the better grounds being nonhearsay, admission of statement made by party opponent.

2: The statement Supervox objected to ("Put another way, if the probative value of the statement depends on the credibility of the person who made it, that statement is necessarily offered for the purpose of proving its truth.") is weird - very badly written, but it has some kernels of truth, just poorly delivered. Allow me to explain:

The inability to cross-examine or impeach the declarant is a key reason why hearsay or affidavit evidence is disfavored by the general rule. This is more of a problem when the statement is offered to prove truth of the matter asserted, and less a matter when it isn't. Therefore, the latter type of statement is sometimes admissible as non-hearsay, if a legitimate nonhearsay foundation is laid.

A possible hearsay statement offered to prove the truth of the matter therein asserted is defective because you cannot cross-examine the source, and therefore inadmissible because of the hersay rule((H->T)->(D&~C); P->I). A possible hearsay statement offered for other reasons is not as problematic, and may still not be inadmissible for other reasons, but not because of the hearsay rule. ((H&~T)->(~D&~C); ~D->~I).

The statement quoted by supervox is weird because it says, H&T->T. (It's informally circular, and formally tautologous). It's not helpful to put it that way. It would be better stated that "when a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter therein asserted, its probative value depends to a much greater extent upon the credibility of the declarant than when it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This would better explain why some out-of-court statements that seem like hearsay fall outside of its definition, and outside of its exclusionary rule. These statements are not automatically admissible just because they are not hearsay. If there are other problems with their probative value, and carry a risk of undue prejudice, the court has grounds not to admit them.

Any questions? Let me know. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't going to respond to Famspear's last post as I thought it was unnecessarily long -- considering the single, unhelpful sentence in the article it was designed to support. However, upon reading an equally flawed response by Non Curat Lex, I cannot help but point out an obvious fact that both authors missed in their responses: y is also a declarant! For some reason, both responses are targeted solely at John, Non Curat Lex's going as far as to say the whole problem may be cured by 801d2a. It may help you frame the issue to forget about John for a while and focus on y.

I hope I can make this as succinct as possible. The reason I take issue with the sentence, and have said it is never true, is because the sentence uses the word necessarily. If you unravel the gobbledygook in the sentence, it is possible to construe it in a way that makes it true sometimes, but not always. It would be like me editing a wikipedia article on noise to say: "If you hear a noise outside your door, it is necessarily being made by an ambulance". Aside from that, the sentence in the article is poorly written, misleading, and equivocal. It also might lead to an overly lengthy debate on some article discussion page about Hearsay in United States law. I suggest it be deleted immediately.

Next, I noticed that each author who responded to my post went on to repeat in their own words what hearsay is, how it works, etc., as if that somehow addressed the issue presented. While that does little to help us move forward with respect to the sentence in question (or the facts as related to "John"!), it did cause me to recognize how well each author's explanation was articulated. My question, then: Why don't any of those thoughts appear in the article? In my opinion, the entire section under the subheading "Federal Rules of Evidence" should be deleted or drastically revised by someone who knows what they are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory. I didn't address the multiple hearsay problem in the example because it's a red herring, and I was only writing about the explanatory sentence that you and I both agree was gobbledigook. It looks like a mis-transcription of something my evidence prof once said - it could be rearranged slightly to form a more accurate statement, but then it would just be redundant.

The statement you quoted is correct and should be removed for the reasons you and I both stated. It takes a "sometimes" and wrongly turns it into an "always." As for your 801(d)(2)(A) strawman, do we have to go there? Okay, let's go there. Of course the ability to cross-examine the declarant isn't the ONLY problem with hearsay; hearsay by in-court witnesses not falling into one of the exceptions are excluded too. But look at all of 801(d), and how many exceptions there are for declarants who are present in court (as parties, or witnesses) and it's hard to say that it isn't significant.

So to conclude, I think you should leave well enough alone. I support your decision to delete that statement. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

grammar claims

The grammar and capitalization really needs to be fixed. For starters, it's always the "hearsay rule," not the "Hearsay Rule!" --Coolcaesar 10:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification

I believe this article meets all of the criterion for B-class status. No comment on importance. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation

When I wrote something accurate, it was deleted by a user who wrote this: Non Curat Lex (Talk | contribs) m (22,604 bytes) (Undid revision 245564667; No - CC was right. That may be true but still is not an excuse. Examples, if to be used, should come from a reliable source. Sorry.).

This article, however, is strewn with unsourced material, like this:

"Generally in common law courts the "hearsay rule" applies, which says that a trier of fact (judge or jury) cannot be informed of a hearsay statement unless it meets certain strict requirements. However, the rules for admissibility are more relaxed in court systems based on the civil law system. In the civil law system, the courts, whether consisting only of judges or featuring a jury, have wide latitude to appreciate the evidence brought before them."

Regarding my failure to cite a "reliable source" for an example that I wrote, take a look at the "common misconceptions" sections, and have a chuckle.

I'm considering deleting all unsourced statements. Debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay123 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That would not necessarily improve the article. Unfortunately, there are a number of statements which are not cited, but which are verifiable. Removing them would gut the article.

Suggestion - don't think about retribution, think about improving the article. Don't delete verifiable statements merely because they are unsourced; add sources, but remove only material that is, per consensus, unverifiable. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not retribution. You can look me up here. I'm not "that guy" (or girl as the case is!) But my point is that examples, if to be used, should come from a reliable source. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay123 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that was deleted was my reference to, regarding the reasons for hearsay, the fact that hearsay is not subject to meaningful cross-examination. For anyone who has tried a case, not allowing hearsay in for that very point is critical. The key issue the P and D may be fighting over may come in by hearsay and you can't substantively examine the witness repeating the declarant's statement. I don't think any attorney or academic would dispute this as a basis for excluding hearsay, yet some one deleted it from the article.--Lindsay (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So bring it back. Do you have a reliable source, or would you like me to provide one for you? Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, of article

Third paragraph reads "Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of another person's statement, as equivalent to testimony by the witness to the fact. Unless the second person is brought to testify in court where they may be placed under oath and cross-examined." My question is about the second sentence in the paragraph. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 801, California Evidence Code 1200, New Jersey and some other State's hearsay statutes, the extrajudicial statement remains hearsay whether or not the hearsay declarant (the "second person") subsequently becomes a witness at the trial and gives testimony about the statement.

I'd very much appreciate knowing what States hold true for the article's assertion. I'm not a lawyer; I was a paralegal eons ago. Any information would be appreciated.G Louis P (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Hearsay

The definition of hearsay used in this article is incorrect (as far as I know) in all US jurisdictions. Whether a statement is hearsay does not turn on the personal knowledge of the witness; rather, it turns on: 1) whether the statement was made out of court; and, 2) whether it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Take a look at the other Wikipedia page on hearsay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay 64.207.15.130 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Just traced it. Turns out it's from this bizarre edit by User:Nwbeeson on 12 November 2011. Looks like Nwbeeson has no idea what is hearsay and ended up conflating it with several other evidentiary concepts, notably foundation. I suggest reverting the intro back to the version prior to 12 November 2011 which is much more accurate and clearer. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Sheesh! I see that I have edited this article since that goofy crap was inserted -- and I had never noticed that stuff, either. Have at it Coolcaesar (unless you just want to delete the nonsense and replace it with a brief explanation of what hearsay actually is). Famspear (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question of hearsay in Trump impeachment

The current production of nonsense, by lawyers who should know better, tells me people will come here trying to figure this out. THE MAIN POINT THAT IS LEFT OUT OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT NEEDS CLARIFYING is really succinctly stated at https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/objection-hearsay-what-is-the-hearsay-rule-and-what-are-the-exceptions-to-it . Here is the point: people are claiming/denying hearsay because they think it relates to the veracity of someone who overhears Trump on the phone. That’s totally wrong. As is explained in that legalzoom link, that’s confusing admissible with credible. If Trump’s words were contrary to his own interests (such as openly discussing bribery) then it’s patently NOT hearsay. Was Holmes lying? Perhaps— but that’s a question of credibility. If another person gives corroborating testimony then that may (and no doubt will) affect credibility. But claiming hearsay is a total smokescreen. NOT because the guy was at the table and heard it with their own ears. THAT doesn’t rule out hearsay. It’s because it’s Trump’s confession of a crime. This distinction should be in the article, using the legalzoom ref. Roricka (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify even further, hearsay relates to the truthfulness of the original speaker (e.g., did Trump or Sondland lie) NOT to the truthfulness of Holmes (which would be perjury, having nothing to do with the issue of hearsay. Roricka (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)