NCJ Number
84343
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
The lecturer explains the Federal Rule of Evidence regarding two exceptions to hearsay -- a witness's out-of-court statement and prior admission by a party to a lawsuit. The former is discussed with detailed reference to United States v. DeSisto (1964).
Abstract
The cross-examiner's impeachment tactic in De Sisto illustrates that assertions made in attacking witness credibility may not always be used to prove what they assert. The manner in which identification hearsay (a witness's prior identification of the defendant in a line-up) was treated in De Sisto is reflected in the Federal Rules of Evidence, according to which prior statements made by a witness on the stand are not considered hearsay. Admission is also treated as not hearsay in the Federal rules. 'Admission' is or amounts to a prior acknowledgement that some fact is not what that party now claims it to be. As long as it is material, one side can put into evidence anything the other side ever said or did. Acts of spoliation, flight, or fabrication of false evidence can be construed as admission by conduct or implied statement. Silence as a form of admission still holds in civil cases. For a definition of hearsay and additional exceptions to the rule, see NCJ 84342 and 84344-45.