Hearsay Question Forum
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Hearsay Question
How could you get something like this let in:
Bob arrives at the Olive Garden and signs his check as "Tony".
Sarah arrives two hours later and asks the Olive Garden manager what Bob signed his check as and the manager says Bob signed it as "Tony." Sarah states all of this at a deposition.
Under the FRE, how could you get Sarah finding out Bob signed his check as Tony into the trial if the Olive Garden manager isn't available to testify? There has to be an exception to this hearsay right?
Thanks in advance!
Bob arrives at the Olive Garden and signs his check as "Tony".
Sarah arrives two hours later and asks the Olive Garden manager what Bob signed his check as and the manager says Bob signed it as "Tony." Sarah states all of this at a deposition.
Under the FRE, how could you get Sarah finding out Bob signed his check as Tony into the trial if the Olive Garden manager isn't available to testify? There has to be an exception to this hearsay right?
Thanks in advance!
- guano
- Posts: 2264
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Why wouldn't you just request a copy of the check during discovery?UCFundergrad wrote:How could you get something like this let in:
Bob arrives at the Olive Garden and signs his check as "Tony".
Sarah arrives two hours later and asks the Olive Garden manager what Bob signed his check as and the manager says Bob signed it as "Tony." Sarah states all of this at a deposition.
Under the FRE, how could you get Sarah finding out Bob signed his check as Tony into the trial if the Olive Garden manager isn't available to testify? There has to be an exception to this hearsay right?
Thanks in advance!
- bjsesq
- Posts: 13320
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Hearsay is a statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The fact is, you don't think a guy named Tony signed this check at all, Bob did. Therefore, this cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that Tony signed the check. There is no exception needed here, this just isn't hearsay.UCFundergrad wrote:How could you get something like this let in:
Bob arrives at the Olive Garden and signs his check as "Tony".
Sarah arrives two hours later and asks the Olive Garden manager what Bob signed his check as and the manager says Bob signed it as "Tony." Sarah states all of this at a deposition.
Under the FRE, how could you get Sarah finding out Bob signed his check as Tony into the trial if the Olive Garden manager isn't available to testify? There has to be an exception to this hearsay right?
Thanks in advance!
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Sorry meant to mention that the check has been misplaced.
So can't find the check or the manager, but the manager still said to Sarah that Bob signed his check as "Tony."
So can't find the check or the manager, but the manager still said to Sarah that Bob signed his check as "Tony."
- bjsesq
- Posts: 13320
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Is the manager available to testify?UCFundergrad wrote:Sorry meant to mention that the check has been misplaced.
So can't find the check or the manager, but the manager still said to Sarah that Bob signed his check as "Tony."
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
No manager isn't available and never gave a deposition. It is all from Sarah's deposition.
I never thought about it not being asserted for the truth of the matter. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around. In my mind it is asserted for the truth of the matter because we are trying to prove that he signed it as Tony and not as Bob. I don't know why my little mind can't grasp that.
I never thought about it not being asserted for the truth of the matter. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around. In my mind it is asserted for the truth of the matter because we are trying to prove that he signed it as Tony and not as Bob. I don't know why my little mind can't grasp that.
- bjsesq
- Posts: 13320
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Think about it like this:
A woman named Samantha declares that she is Kate Beckinsale. You attempt to admit this at trial. Other side says hearsay. Is it?
NO:
1) It is only the truth of the matter asserted (she asserted she is Kate Beckinsale) if you use that to prove she is Kate Beckinsale (ignoring exceptions for the moment).
2) In this case you could be using this assertion to prove she is lying, nuts, etc. Note that this is not the truth of what she asserted.
But you have another problem here, because people will argue hearsay within hearsay. We already got around the first part, the signature itself is not hearsay. But you do have a problem with the manager's statement that he signed the check "Tony." Here, you ARE trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ordinarily you could get around this by just calling the manager to testify, but apparently that isn't an option here. So, look to an exception. On the exception, I will need to think about it. Nothing is coming to mind at the moment, unless Sara asked him immediately after the check was signed. If so, present sense impression.
A woman named Samantha declares that she is Kate Beckinsale. You attempt to admit this at trial. Other side says hearsay. Is it?
NO:
1) It is only the truth of the matter asserted (she asserted she is Kate Beckinsale) if you use that to prove she is Kate Beckinsale (ignoring exceptions for the moment).
2) In this case you could be using this assertion to prove she is lying, nuts, etc. Note that this is not the truth of what she asserted.
But you have another problem here, because people will argue hearsay within hearsay. We already got around the first part, the signature itself is not hearsay. But you do have a problem with the manager's statement that he signed the check "Tony." Here, you ARE trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ordinarily you could get around this by just calling the manager to testify, but apparently that isn't an option here. So, look to an exception. On the exception, I will need to think about it. Nothing is coming to mind at the moment, unless Sara asked him immediately after the check was signed. If so, present sense impression.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Could it maybe be present sense impression when the manager actually READ the check despite the check being signed two hours ago? Maybe a stretch there.bjsesq wrote:Think about it like this:
A woman named Samantha declares that she is Kate Beckinsale. You attempt to admit this at trial. Other side says hearsay. Is it?
NO:
1) It is only the truth of the matter asserted (she asserted she is Kate Beckinsale) if you use that to prove she is Kate Beckinsale (ignoring exceptions for the moment).
2) In this case you could be using this assertion to prove she is lying, nuts, etc. Note that this is not the truth of what she asserted.
But you have another problem here, because people will argue hearsay within hearsay. We already got around the first part, the signature itself is not hearsay. But you do have a problem with the manager's statement that he signed the check "Tony." Here, you ARE trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ordinarily you could get around this by just calling the manager to testify, but apparently that isn't an option here. So, look to an exception. On the exception, I will need to think about it. Nothing is coming to mind at the moment, unless Sara asked him immediately after the check was signed. If so, present sense impression.
- bjsesq
- Posts: 13320
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am
Re: Hearsay Question
You could certainly argue it, but he isn't recollecting dude signing it at that point. He is merely reciting what is on the check. If that is all you need, fuck it, YOLOUCFundergrad wrote:Could it maybe be present sense impression when the manager actually READ the check despite the check being signed two hours ago? Maybe a stretch there.bjsesq wrote:Think about it like this:
A woman named Samantha declares that she is Kate Beckinsale. You attempt to admit this at trial. Other side says hearsay. Is it?
NO:
1) It is only the truth of the matter asserted (she asserted she is Kate Beckinsale) if you use that to prove she is Kate Beckinsale (ignoring exceptions for the moment).
2) In this case you could be using this assertion to prove she is lying, nuts, etc. Note that this is not the truth of what she asserted.
But you have another problem here, because people will argue hearsay within hearsay. We already got around the first part, the signature itself is not hearsay. But you do have a problem with the manager's statement that he signed the check "Tony." Here, you ARE trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ordinarily you could get around this by just calling the manager to testify, but apparently that isn't an option here. So, look to an exception. On the exception, I will need to think about it. Nothing is coming to mind at the moment, unless Sara asked him immediately after the check was signed. If so, present sense impression.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Haha. It's the best I've got at this point.
If you think of something let me know please!
If you think of something let me know please!
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:27 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Agreed. If I've understood the situation properly, the exchange went as follows:bjsesq wrote:But you have another problem here, because people will argue hearsay within hearsay. We already got around the first part, the signature itself is not hearsay. But you do have a problem with the manager's statement that he signed the check "Tony." Here, you ARE trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Sarah: Who did Bob sign his check as?
Manager: Tony
The manager's statement asserts the following: "Bob signed his check as Tony." It seems like that's what OP wants to prove, so it'd be Hearsay.
I believe there are three possible ways out of this. However, I think only the first one has a good chance of working.
1. Argue it's not hearsay because you aren't offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, you'd have to argue that you do not want to prove that "Bob signed his check as Tony." Perhaps you could argue that the purpose of this statement is to see the effect it would have on Sarah.
2. Hearsay exception: Present Sense Impression. Bjsesq mentioned this.
3. Hearsay exception: Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. I think this would be a strong argument if you had the check. If you don't have the check, it's very unlikely that it would work. I suppose you'd have to argue that remembering how customers sign their checks is a "record" that the manager regularly keeps.
- bjsesq
- Posts: 13320
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Gotta be honest, I am not sure this would come close to getting it done. I thought about Business records exception, and I do not think this meets the requirements.woosah wrote:3. Hearsay exception: Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. I think this would be a strong argument if you had the check. If you don't have the check, it's very unlikely that it would work. I suppose you'd have to argue that remembering how customers sign their checks is a "record" that the manager regularly keeps.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Yea I'm worried that if I were to ask Sarah on the stand about what the manager said it will be objected to and while I could say it's not for the truth of the matter asserted, the manager's statement must still be hearsay right?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- bjsesq
- Posts: 13320
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am
Re: Hearsay Question
He's saying you aren't using the manager's statement for truth, but for its impact on Sarah and her subsequent actions. Therefore, it wouldn't be hearsay.UCFundergrad wrote:Yea I'm worried that if I were to ask Sarah on the stand about what the manager said it will be objected to and while I could say it's not for the truth of the matter asserted, the manager's statement must still be hearsay right?
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Ahhh gotchya. Well I can at least try.
- guano
- Posts: 2264
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am
Re: Hearsay Question
this thread seems a little too close to soliciting legal advice
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Class exercise. Could go to my TA, but he's out of town.guano wrote:this thread seems a little too close to soliciting legal advice
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- guano
- Posts: 2264
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am
Re: Hearsay Question
please tell me it's not gradedUCFundergrad wrote:Class exercise. Could go to my TA, but he's out of town.guano wrote:this thread seems a little too close to soliciting legal advice
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm
Re: Hearsay Question
Nope, prep for something in a month that will be graded.
- SnakySalmon
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:48 am
Re: Hearsay Question
Wait, is TLS doing your homework right now?UCFundergrad wrote:Class exercise. Could go to my TA, but he's out of town.guano wrote:this thread seems a little too close to soliciting legal advice
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login