Very clear. Thank you

I don't understand why the hearsay objection in the last hypothetical would be sustained. If the statement was not hearsay, as the witness is not trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then why would the judge sustain the hearsay objection? Any insight would be very much appreciated!

Damn, that was a good discussion and presentation. Where are you Fromm?

6:33 since you were not trying to bring the statement in for it's truth, then wouldn't the hearsay objection be overruled (rather than sustained)? I just noticed that adamyonghaozheng7868 asked the same question 3 years ago :) [which was never answered]

I still don't get this concept. "That guy has your kid" is still being brought in to prove the truth (that the defendant had a mistake of fact) of the matter asserted (that the defendant was justified under the battery cause of action).

@RiriTani531

4 жыл бұрын

I think you're thinking of it as Truth of the Matter Asserted in the proceedings while it's TOMA of the statement that you heard. So you're not trying to show that the fact that the 1st guy told you that the 2nd guy took your kid was true but only that it had an effect on you. but on the 1st hypo, you're brought in as a witness to assert the TOMA of the statement that you heard when you were passing by the house. hope this helps.

Hearsay pisses me off. Proffs go completely out of their way to rig the exam questions to trick you.

The declarant cant be his own witness against the documents.

Nice

But you still have prove that the guy told you that... and for THAT purpose it is hearsey by a party with a vested interest... the ol' devil made me do it defense.