Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 6/23/01 1:42:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, darkroom@ix.netcom.com writes: << hearsay could not be used in criminal cases as evidence, but in civil it could. This would allow the cop to basically say "I saw him speeding" and the judge could then say "guilty", and no further proof was required. >> Wrong twice. Hearsay is not allowed in criminal or civil proceedings, with certain exceptions. When a cop says: "I saw him speeding" that is not hearsay, it is his direct testimony of his perception (correct or faulty) of the event. If the cop's testimony were: my partner told me he saw the defendant speeding, that's hearsay. The testifying cop has no testimony of his own perceptions that bears on guilt or innocence; he is attempting to prove guilt or innocence through the perceptions of another. The reason Anglo-American common law bars the use of hearsay is precisely because the witness whose [out-of-court] testimony is being used to establish guilt or innocence is not in court and therefore not subject to cross-examination to test his recollection, veracity, credibility etc. If the cop testified: "the defendant told me that he was speeding" that is also hearsay but it is admissible hearsay as one of the exceptions: it is an admission against self-interest. Seth LaK 9