How do you argue hearsay?
Hearsay is a statement made by someone other than the witness testifying in court. It is usually not allowed as evidence because it is not reliable. Even if an utterance contains a factual assertion, it is only hearsay if the evidence is offered to prove the truth of that factual assertion.
Hearsay is not always inadmissible. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow certain statements to be admitted as evidence. For example, if the statement is made by a person with personal knowledge of the facts, it may be admissible. Additionally, if the statement is made by a person with special expertise, it may be admissible.
When a hearsay objection is raised, the party offering the evidence must prove that the statement falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. If the party cannot prove that the statement falls within an exception, the statement will be excluded from evidence.
You can therefore respond to a hearsay objection by arguing that the statement helps prove a material fact other than the fact asserted in the statement. For example, if the statement is offered to prove that a certain event occurred, you can argue that the statement is relevant to prove that the person making the statement had knowledge of the event. This is known as the “statement against interest” exception to the hearsay rule.
Another way to respond to a hearsay objection is to argue that the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show the effect it had on the listener. This is known as the “state of mind” exception to the hearsay rule.
Finally, you can argue that the statement is admissible under the “present sense impression” exception to the hearsay rule. This exception allows statements to be admitted if they are made while the declarant is perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.
In summary, when a hearsay objection is raised, you can respond by arguing that the statement falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. You can argue that the statement is relevant to prove a material fact other than the fact asserted in the statement, that the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, or that the statement is admissible under the “present sense impression” exception.