Truth of the Matter Asserted | Understanding Hearsay (Finally)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 гру 2021
- Finally! Truth of the Matter Asserted explained! Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is being offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
But, what does "truth of the matter asserted" actually mean?
Fortunately, in this video, the fog around this hearsay topic is finally lifted. With hearsay examples and cases, you'll see an easy way to challenge and support hearsay objections.
_____________________________________________________________________
🔥🔥 Check out Trial Ad Academy: bit.ly/2svSR2h
This is an online course that will take you step-by-step through all of the stages of trial and will arm you with the tools needed to thrive under the pressure!
_____________________________________________________________________
** FREE Cheat sheet: 21 Trial Objection + BONUS: bit.ly/2ufpAXw
⭐⭐ The Objection Cheat Sheet has over 3,000 downloads! ⭐⭐
** FREE Mini E-book: 10-Step Formula for the Perfect Opening Statement: bit.ly/2uUCQ3X
_____________________________________________________________________
If you have any questions, then please don't hesitate to ask! Be sure to subscribe and you can follow Jarrett Stone at:
Law Venture: lawventure.com
Instagram: bit.ly/2Mz3neS
Twitter: bit.ly/2JKIBew
Facebook: bit.ly/2HU6L0o
Personal Website: JarrettStone.com
Reach out to Erik Scramlin: tacticalattorney.com/
Check out Erik's podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
_____________________________________________________________________
Now the boring stuff:
This is not legal advice. This content and all of Law Venture's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.
Full disclaimer: bit.ly/2JjVjQT
What else is confusing about hearsay?
Who is the declarant
@@7LegSpiders thanks! Also I just passed the Bar. With a high enough score to practice in any UBE jurisdiction. I think this paid off after all
@@yngclothing
The person who said it.
@@MrProfessional777 thanks I passed the bar! Wohoo
@@yngclothing
Congratulations!!! 🎉💪🏾
I was sitting here for 30 minutes trying to digest the verbose explanation in this casebook until I tapped out and took to UA-cam. This vid was a godsend. Cheers.
I’m a 2L taking evidence rn and hearsay was giving me a lot of trouble but I think I FINALLY understand it! THANK YOU!!!
yeah thanks, as a recent start up down the law path this was very helpful! This definitely showed me some clear examples of what TMA is and how to shell out the statement one bite at a time.
This was a good a video. Glad that u pointed out lawyers and judges get confused on this issue bc im in law school and find this concept the hardest so far. Bc u have go figure out first what is the truth of the matter asserted for the particular case and facts u have but then u have to compare and take what is being objected to and take that against what u say is the truth of the matter asserted. But if u cant get the first part--> what is the truth of the matter asserted, u r screwed! Then to compare that w reason u or opposing party is trying to bring in, can get confusing. Bc i always think we’ll ultimately it is being brought in for that reason, but not quite lol
Unfortunately, I still don't understand truth of the matter asserted. I keep misidentifying what I think the TOTMA is when I'm doing practice questions. It's extremely frustrating.
You are not alone, attorneys and judges get it wrong all the time. A classic example I like to think of is a trial involving the validity of a will. One party is claiming the testator was not of sound mind when she made the will so they bring a witness to the stand that testifies that on the day the testator signed the will she told him "today is the day the aliens are invading, the world ends tonight." The statement is not being offered to prove that aliens are invading and the world ends tonight (the truth of the matter asserted). It's being offered to show that the testator was not of sound mind when she made the statement. Hope this helps. Keep looking at examples and it will click eventually.
Ur not alone! I could kill an essay but mcq will be the death of me
It means that the statement is used to prove what it claims: it's self-referential or, in other words, a kind of circular reasoning. This is why there must be more circumstantial evidence to justify admitting the statement e.g. excited utterance, present-sense impression, penal interest, among others: it would mislead people unless we can verify the statement's source through showing that it's less likely to be made up.
Very helpful. Thank you 🙏
This makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
Great. Thanks for that!
Thank you so much!
if the proponent accentuates why he/she isn't using the statement(s), wouldn't that be a passive way to highlight the hearsay into evidence?
I am experiencing a disconnect with your hypo about"timing being an issue" in regards to the hearsay statement. Dispatch relays to the officer that shots are fired at an address, and the prosecution is trying to offer that out-of-court statement not to prove the matter asserted (shots fired), but because the prosecution wanted to show how quickly the officer reacted to dispatch? Is the statement being introduced to show that the officer had a sense of urgency when coming to the scene because that's at issue in the case?
Yes, you got the idea. My example was simply to illustrate that if you can show that you are offering the statement for some purpose other than the "truth of the matter asserted", and its relevant, then it's not hearsay and the Q&A should be allowed. For example, if there is a dispute about the timeline, it may be relevant for the prosecution to show that the officer arrived on scene within minutes of the call. The dispatch call would be relevant to show the impact on the listener, i.e. officer responded running code at a high rate of speed. Hopefully that helps! Thanks for the comment.
So the matter asserted is the thing that the person offering the evidence is trying to demonstrate as true.
Hearsay is anything from a second hand (or more distant) source that is used in an attempt to do so.
E.g. if A hears B say event [1] happened, and A intends to demonstrate that [1] happened by giving B's statement as second hand testimony, this is hearsay.
It is not hearsay if:
1. B is on the stand and gives their own statement about [1] happening directly to the court.
2. A is only trying to demonstrate that B said [1] occurred, not that [1] actually did occur.
Am I getting this wrong?
Thank you for your video. One question… wouldn’t a rental application be an assertion that the Defendant lived at the address and not just an assertion of contract terms? Why was this not hearsay, if you don’t mind elaborating. Thank you again.
Really good question! The analysis is a bit technical. I think the argument to make is that the rental application does not state that the Defendant currently lives at the address. In fact, it's an application to live at the address in the future. Showing that the application was ultimately approved is probative towards the Defendant having control of the rental unit mentioned in the application.
thank you,
"Have you spoken to Bob since Christmas?"
"Yes, he texted me last weekend and said he made beef stew. Here's his text."
Here, they're not trying to offer into evidence that beef stew was made, just that communication happened between the two parties. The text could say that his pants didn't fit, or that his horse hates comedy movies. The content is irrelevant, the important part is that communication occurred.
Not a lawyer but I think I'm finally getting it. They love using this objection in media. I have a way that someone here could maybe check if this parses properly. If a statement is presented to imply a fact then its hearsay. If a statement is presented as a detail/explanation then it is, most likely, admissible. The problem with the split at the end is that the witness is saying she heard the victim use the name Ty implying the fact that she was on the phone with the defendant. The witness doesn't know this for a fact but is implying that it is likely a fact based on what she heard. If this statement could be connected to her own reaction in a relevant way it could be admissible similar to the shots fired statement but, since it is stated simply as a conclusion, there is an issue. Is that about right?
Here after Darrell brooks kept saying Hearsay to every statement. He should have watched this
See Ross v. St. Augustine's College, 103 F.3d 338, 342 (4th Cir. 1996) ("Statements that contain direct observations of the physical appearance and actions of another person are not hearsay at all, but rather direct evidence of the facts in question”
The reasoning why testimony of a heated argument is not hearsay.
In other words, the statement is true because I said so.