Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:32 PM 6/25/01 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: >It is hearsay if that is related by someone else in court, and that is what >happens in MA. I was missing the third party in my sentence, and I corrected >this mistake a few days ago. It is NOT the cop that shows up, but some >"representative", so it is NOT the cop that says that in court, it is the >"representative" that says that the cop said "I saw him speeding", and THAT >is hearsay. Austin, the proper rule is that "hearsay is not admissible OVER OBJECTION". Just about any statement is admissible unless YOU or your attorney says, "OBJECTION! HEARSAY!" -- the Judges around here will do that for you but, clearly, not in your fair state. That will change the equation quite a bit. I believe the US Supreme Court has guaranteed the fundamental application of rules of evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings. Substantive due process does have a limited life! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!