Legal Issues

Hearsay is the word used in legal circles to describe any statements made outside a court of law or outside legal proceedings concerning or relating to a court case. Hearsay is not usually admissible as evidence in a court of law in the United States of America according to any statute except in some major exceptions.

The rule against hearsay is defined so that a persons verbal assertions can not be presented as argument for or against a case unless he or she is brought before the court to testify during the judicial proceedings under oath or cross examination. For example, if a policeman arrests a man for driving under the influence of alcohol and testifies in a court of law that a particular barmaid informed him that she had sold the accused seven one liter bottles of brandy, then his evidence will not be admitted as it is hearsay (Duck, 1995). The rule against hearsay is not just limited to verbal statements it may sometimes be applicable to formal written statements, sworn testimonies from previous judicial proceedings, signs and gestures, drawings and photographs or even non-verbal conduct.

Theory of the rule against hearsay
The rule against hearsay is based on the fact that verbal assertions made by people are in most cases unreliable and partisan. Statements made by people based on memory recollections are in some cases characterized by insincerity an erosion of facts due to errors of narration and other distortions. It is therefore necessary that such statements are subjected to closer scrutiny and cross-examination so that any flaws in the information contained therein may be exposed and their applicability may be correctly assessed.

To avoid the risk of inaccurate statements influencing ruling in a case, Federal Rules stipulate that all oral assertions for or against a case must be taken under oath in front of the tribunal or jury hearing the case. Such assertions must then be scrutinized to expose any flaws. Hearsay is therefore any oral statement or evidence of any other nature made outside the court if the originator of such evidence is not brought before a judge or jury to testify, such evidence cannot be permissible for that particular case as the demeanor or credibility has not been established (Choo, 1996)

Exception to the rule against hearsay
The commonest misconception about this rule is that very many people believe that hearsay, by definition of its context, is not permissible in a court of law as evidence for or against a case. The reality is that the rule against hearsay is very simple but is full of exceptions. Despite the fact that many statements may be considered hearsay, they may actually be admissible in a court of law as evidence for or against a case.

When a person is a victim or witness to a startling event, there can be an exception to the rule against hearsay in that he or she may have made utterances under conditions of shock or excitement. Legally, these statements are referred to as excited utterances. For example, supposed a burglar breaks into a house and engages the man of the house in a fight shooting him to death and a police officer on patrol hears the wife crying for help. Upon entry into the house, the wife will most definitely be in a state of shock. Her attempts to describe the assailant may be ruled as hearsay at that instant and for any duration of time for as long as she is still shaken by the events that occurred, but if she recovers from that shock and her statements continue to be consistent, then they may be admissible before a court of law as evidence for robbery with violence (Duck, 1995). However, as time progresses between the time of occurrence of an event and subsequent excited statements, the more such statements will be looked upon as consisting valid evidence against a defendant.

The other occasion when oral utterances made outside a judicial hearing may be admitted as evidence in a court of law is if they are fully representative of the speakers present sense impressions. For example, if a person is commuting in a public transport vehicle and remarks to the driver that he or she is driving too fast and carelessly before an accident, then such a statement will be admissible as evidence as it represents the actual condition the speaker was in as the person declaring it.

c. Nature of the rule against hearsay
The evidence used to convict or acquit a person or a group of people of an offence must always be the most convincing evidence available. For example, supposing someone named Peter saw John murder James, it would be unconvincing to ask Peters mother what he saw John do. Hearsay should be excluded because the towers that safeguard the credibility and consequent admissive ness of a testimony in a court of law, namely an oath and cross-examination, are not included in its context (Kirgis, 2001). Legal practitioners should stick to the view that the truth about anything is best established when issues raised are addressed through a respondents unrehearsed answers. The truth can only be established after witnesses have been subjected to an oath and affirmation.

It is important to remember that hearsay evidence is not presented before a court or a jury, it is therefore necessary that the judicial system devices a system where hearsay orators are tracked down and brought up before a court where after affirmation and oath taking, they can be questioned and cross-examined so that there truth in their evidence can be established to aid in the provision of justice. However, the risk associated with the consideration of hearsay evidence is that for orally stated hearsay evidence, a witness can always tailor his or her comments to meet his or her requirements or to suit the need of an interested party. In addition, oral statements almost always change in words and context any time they are narrated afresh, therefore the information contained in them changes from one time to another. For written or formal hearsay statements, there is always the danger that such may be tailored for the same reasons as above.

Hearsay evidence is not, however, always unreliable and the rule against hearsay has to be disregarded at times especially when other factors are supporting hearsay evidence to comprise a very convincing argument. As stated above, exceptions have to be made on the rule against hearsay when the nature of information contained therein is most likely to be true. Such scenarios may arise when a witness makes statements as to go contrary of his interests, when the statements are available in public documents or the hearsay had spontaneity with the occurrence of events when the felony was committed and are therefore likely to possess reliable information (Allen, 1996).

Therefore, the rule against hearsay, as long as it contains to have these exceptions, will always cause a reason for contention on the judgment passed on cases. As noted in the introductory section, the rule against hearsay is not catered for by any statute in Federal Law and therefore it is illogical, arbitrary and accordingly unnecessarily complex.

The rule against hearsay could lead to the denial of justice just because a witness who could bring forward facts concerning a crime is either dead, unavailable or cannot testify because of any other inhibitions. Secondly, it makes the justice more expensive because extra costs need to be incurred in an attempt to avail or prove facts that are not really disputed. In addition to that, it makes the judicial process unduly complicated due to its possession of a network of intricate exceptions that complicate judicial hearing procedures. This rule has the potential of depriving courts very substantial evidence that would otherwise be very valuable for the establishment of truth.

Supposing, for example a murder suspect committed the offence some years ago while mentally ill and the doctor that was treating him is already deceased, but has left records of the suspects mental state at the time alleged the offence was committed. The rule against hearsay will forbid the production of these notes as evidence in court even if they are still available in the institution where that patient was being treated and are fully validated. This could lead to the suspect being sentenced to death row for a capital offence even though he was mentally unstable at the time he is supposed to have committed the offence (Eugene, 2006). This is utterly ludicrous.

In conclusion, it would seem that I favor the admission of evidence on a hearsay basis of course not. The rule against hearsay has some rationale and is therefore justifiable when applied to certain specific circumstances. It is undisputable that evidence should be provided and admitted upon cross-examination but the manner in which relevant evidence is turned down in a court should be harmonized for the sake of justice. Flexibility and common sense should prevail and the rules governing the dispensation of justice should be simplified even for the layman to comprehend. The dismissal or admission of evidence should not be based on rules that create loopholes for disparities and protection of particular interests at the expense of justice.