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! Are you saying that even in MA, because of a US Supreme Court ruling, I could technically "object" to the "representatives" statements, saying that they are not admissable since they are hearsay? I do believe, at best, that would just piss the judge off. You've obviously never been in a MA trial court! In traffic cases (or even small claims cases) in MA, they do not allow any cross examination at all, you are only allowed to speak directly to the judge/magistrate, so there is no opportunity for "objection". If you speak when not specifically told you may do so, you are scolded. BTW, in MA they allow magistrates to now conduct trials now!