Johnny Depp Gets Annoyed By Hearsay Objections -- A Lawyer Explains Hearsay
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 кві 2022
- Patreon: / runkleofthebailey
Locals: runkleofthebailey.locals.com/
BTC address: bc1qdqzpz6ny6w35qyl2rnasshjm60jvwcjgllwcay
All comments for information only. Do not take anything as legal advice--if you have a legal issue, contact a lawyer directly so that you can received advice tailored to your situation. All views expressed are solely those of the creator.
Alternative Title: An Elf Lawyer explains the problem with Wikipedia
legallegolas
He rocks the lawyer outfit
@@slade178 Shouldn't that just be legalas?
@@Disasterpotato legalas or lawgalas
🤣🤣🤣
I never trusted Bob. He's always been a little suspect.
Nah, Bob's alright, people just spout a lot of B.S. about him...
Hey, isn't Bob your uncle?
I resemble that remark!😎
Im shocked he shot someone...just shocked! Not Bob!
😂😂😂😂
I dont agree with Johnny on Politics, but he is funny , and Brave , he is standing up for MEN who have been abused . the double standards have to stop
Don't need to always agree with someone to like them.
My dad's sister emotionally abuses her husband - my dad wouldn't talk with her but would go out of his way to see Uncle Johnny that was 70s. This isn't new thing we just finally are talking about it.
Lol.... Johnny Bravo......
Sounds like liberals lol.
I think it was a draw.
Statistically speaking, women hit men more often than men hit women.
When you pass the Witcher trials and chose to practice law instead 💪 I love the hair and even more so the legal knowledge!
Ian runkle of rivia. And allot of canadian content creators grow their hair since the barber shops got shut down. They open again.. but the long hairs have banned togeather. In canada we now let the flow grow, (fro grow for viva fri).
😂😂😂
bro I was thinking the same 🤣
@@zackplauche gareld doesn't have a shot gun
Objection, speculation
The hearsay thing was really confusing me watching this trial and seemed almost arbitrary when it did and didn’t count. Your video completely cleared it up for me! Feels great how everything is clicking into place that was confusing to me before
When I was an officer who had to give evidence on the stand I was always careful to say something like, "...as a result of my conversation with XXXX I was lead to believe YYYYYY" or as a result of my conversation with XXXXX I spoke to YYYYY or accessed QQQ database and discovered ZZZZZ. That usually went through without the defense objecting.
Ian, you did a great job explaining the complexities of hearsay law. The problem is that I like Depp and as a result, if I were on the jury, I would be inclined to believe him.
Quiet a few? That’s a understatement lol
The whole trail is basically a hearsay
Overrule
Bob is a monster. He must be stopped.
@@MagicMikey1 of course Bob is clearly the Florida man of Canada. Being pursued by the immortal Runckle.
You’ve done a good job explaining this concept…thank you!
Spectacular explanation, Lawgolas.
thank you Runkle of the Bailey! appreciate the vids always!
Ian, I think that you did explain hearsay clearly. A basic understanding develops a transferable skill that makes it easier to understand political discussions, or any complex discussion. This understanding should encourage everybody to slow down and question the source information without being rude or feeling insulted.
Thank you for the explanation on hearsay. Some of it is still a bit confusing but parts are much clearer now. Great explanation!
I appreciate your thoughtful insights when you weigh in with the LegalBytes lawyers.
Having a hard time understanding when they object with hearsay and they're talking about what they themself told someone. Is that hearsay because it's not proveable?
I’m trying to find that out too - but seemed it applied moreso to Amber than anyone else. She could testify to what JD said, but not what she herself said.... I’m confused! 🙃
The principle of reliability is the factor in those cases, if the question calls for an answer that can be bias or manipulative it's hearsay.
No. It is hearsay. Even if you’re just saying what you yourself said, it’s still an out of court statement, and it’s usually being offered to “prove the truth of the matter asserted” (in most of the instances in this trial, anyway).
Depending on what the statement is, it could fall under one of the hearsay exceptions and be allowed anyway.
Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your head around just how broad the “out of court statement” part is. Eg, even if you recorded yourself on video with 10 thousand witnesses, if you said it outside the court, it’s hearsay. Doesn’t matter if it’s verbal or written, recorded, signed, or written on stone. Hope that helps.
Thank you so much Ian seen you on Emily D Baker's live. You're doing a fabulous job of explaining what all of us who are watching the Johnny trial. I see you in that court room and I'm like yaa Ian is there I just saw him on EDB live during lunch break. Keeps me focused on what's going on in court. Thank you so much. Can't wait to see what happens next week. Stay awesome Ian your a good lawyer!!
I was expecting the hearsay to him claiming direct knowledge of her birthday just because of the topic of the video. Glad to see they refrained.
Right?! My immediate thought was, "At some point she must have told him her birthday - boom! Hearsay!"
So appreciate your education to your viewers. Continued success in all you do
Ian of Rivia! Thanks for clearing this up good sir.
Just found your channel. You would make an excellent teacher for law students. Very clear explanations and examples. Thank you for sharing all this info without answering questions only if a viewer makes a “donation” as some others do on UA-cam
Great job. Thank you.
Thanks, Geralt.
In previous 30± year job, I used to testify in spite of objected hearsay all the time. It came in under offered for state of mind.
Fantastic video! I'm going to send this to my friend who asked me to define hearsay after watching the Johnny Depp clip. As a law student, I would be missing an opportunity for immaterial pedantry if I didn't point out that you imply (at ~10:25) that the excited utterance exception partly relates to the unavailability of the witness. However, under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, that exception applies even if the witness is available to testify. See FRE 803(2). Any discrepancy between the excited utterance and the courtroom testimony would be a reliability question for the jury to evaluate. I believe most states mirror this approach, although I may be wrong.
Very useful explanation. Thank you.
Thank you.
thank you mr. malfoy 👍👍👍
This bob guy is quite the character... He can't keep getting away with it.
But you cant object with hearsay if youre the one asking the question, right? like what her lawyer just did... odd
Correct, as he was the lawyer cross examining the witness he should have asked for a ‘motion to strike [that statement] as hearsay.’
You know, I could swear that this happened during the Brooks trial. I was very surprised because it's one of the few times he got the objection right, even though he was the one asking questions.
Haven't been able to find that moment again, so it's entirely possible I dreamed it. In which case... what a boring dream.
'Bob' was a very good example. 👍
We want to hear from Bob for sure….
Great explanation!!!
I usually don’t leave comments; However, since you mentioned non-lawyers and how the messages reach them, me as one really enjoyed this video and definitely will watch more of them. Thanks 😊
3 minutes in and already one of the best explanations I've found. All Witcher status aside, you go Canada (as I say with a heavy heart as an American....😪😘😝😆)
I feel like the best plain-language word for this is "vouching". Hearsay is when someone says something out of court, and in court you vouch for them. "Bob said he was having a party, and I can vouch for him - he wouldn't lie about that".
Also, confessions are another big exception, yes?
Absolutely, yes. Admissions against interest/confessions.
But in this case amber wasn’t allowed to say anything about what she herself said in situations. Why is this?
@@nightsgrow6575 it's a tricky case, but it's still an out of court statement. You're saying "I said this and I wouldn't lie about it", effectively vouching for the honesty of your past self.
One way to make this intuitive is to think about whether or not you can charge someone with perjury if the statement is false. If not, probably hearsay. Say I send a text message saying "I'm in New York" but I'm not actually in New York. Then on the stand, I'm asked "did you tell your friend you were in NY?" and I say yes. I did not lie in court. So if the purpose of the question is to show that I was in NY, that's hearsay.
It's the same reason experts are allowed to read their notes to refresh their memories, but can't just read their notes out loud.
Wonderful explanation 👍🏼
I think you do a good job explaining, also I love the outro music choice.
Great content :)
I love watching Young Lucius Malfoy talk law.
How and when would a defense subpoena a police officer? Is the defense better off arguing the officer statements or officer notes with or without them in the courtroom?
Thank
You
There was another hearsay objection during the doctor’s testimony. It made no sense, I wish I could remember what it was but it was so odd that Nick had to explain it and I still didn’t understand the reasoning.
You are correct about this. Thank you for reminding me. The gental reminders are helpful to me.
Thanks Ian - Now would a lawyer have their client say something under oath knowing/believing that it will be declare Hearsay, because you cannot unring a bell after all and that point will still be made?.
No, definitely not. My lawyer told me that he's 100% honest and would never use a trick to circumvent the law, or even think for a second about doing so.
Yes, this happens all the time. It’s on the opposing party to object promptly, preferably before the witness can start answering. That’s why many times the attorney objects to the question itself, as in “Objection, CALLS for hearsay.”
Except
Under 17 minutes! Excelsior!
Hello I’m a new subscriber and I will check out your content. You seem to provide a lot of educational legal information and I thank you.
And I almost forgot to mention that I think Amber is beyond disturbing and toxic. I’m a victim of DV and I get nauseous watching and hearing her.
I served on a federal civil case as a juror and I've heard objection hearsay so much and both counsel approaching the bench so much throughout the trial it was very annoying I loved the judge though he made it go as smooth as possible for us
Thank you for the birthday thing. I was actually mulling that over, thinking it might be considered hearsay as well.
thanks for the explanation!
Does the USA not have a first hand hearsay exception, gee that must be annoying
I am not so good in unterstanding english, but you made it clear for me what hearsay means. Many thanks. Greets from germany
I understand now. thanks
You explained all that very clearly, it makes a lot of sense to me now. However i wouldn't be against some more examples or exceptions, they're delightful to learn about
Thanks for the legal analysis, Legolas's Father!
Why was the reading of tabloid articles not deemed as Heresy?
Those statements by unknown persons were not verified as factual? 🤔
this is what I've been wondering too, like those articles are not the most reliable source. but maybe because this is defamation trial due to amber wrote op-ed about johnny, so MAYBE those articles are relevant to show the situation about johnny's reputation.
AH's team should've seen (they knew the facts about AH's bday & could've used being late to dinner was a reason for AH being upset) that what JD was explaining about the dinner actually HELPED AH's story a little bit, from AH & her lawyers' perspective. JD was just trying to explain that Josh cooking the b-day dinner was a big part of what went down that night, due to TIMING. AH was (wrongly) mad at JD for being LATE FOR DINNER.
That’s it Ian is gonna sport the JD hairstyle 😂
Please do a detailed analysis of the hearsay objections in the this trial
Made sense thanks!
Ah ha! I thought Middle Earth might be in Canada! 🇨🇦
Damn. Love the closing music
I can’t say I’ve noticed Depp’s team asking any leading questions to Johnny. Hmm
A guy I know told me this video was useful to him.
How do you answer a direct question without it being hearsay?
yes or no
@@JS-lm3lq that doesn't really work if you're ask a who, what when where, how question
Is there a possibility of Canadian courtrooms adopting the same transparency that some of the American courtrooms have?
I wouldn't count on it any time soon, unfortunately
Not a chance canada is to currupt. They want to be able to fire Supreme court judges... in name of "protecting the constitution ".... the current regime is anti-human.
So, if I am testifying and I answer a question like, "Why were you in the doctor's office that day?" I may have to make a statement, "I received a phone call about a medical test and the doctor wanted to go over the results." This wouldn't be hearsay but if I state, "I received a phone call from the doctor's office and the receptionist told me that the doctor was concerned about my results and wished to speak to me as soon as possible." Would that be hearsay? Also, how does hearsay work for things like Police statements? Wouldn't the Police testifying about what a witness stated be hearsay unless the witness themselves took the stand?
Most police interviews are recorded, either in a room or initially on their bodycams.
your first example is arguably hearsay. you're offering the doctor's out of court statement ("i want to go over the results") for its truth (the reason you were in the doctor's office). the second is also hearsay - likely double hearsay (the receptionist's statement is hearsay, as is what the doctor told the receptionist).
there are a bunch of hearsay exceptions and definitional "non hearsay". a big one in criminal cases is the party-opponent admission, which might speak to your second question.
@@bluelady214 recordings are hearsay.
I think you understood it as I did. I see the difference that is made but it is also irrelevant to some extant since people express themselves differently from one to another.
Neither of those examples are being offered to prove anything about the results. Those statements wouldn't be hearsay. They are answering the question "Why were you there?" and the answer is that you believed the doctor wanted to talk about the test results. Whether the doctor *actually* wanted to talk to you at all isn't relevant to you being there. This is what would be called "state of mind evidence." Your answers would both explain what you were reacting to. Those same answers would be hearsay if the question was instead "What did the doctor want to talk to you about?"
I always wondered why do lawyers have to call these things? Isn't the judge there aware of the law & able to call hearsays, for example when they come up? Put another way, if the opposition lawyer doesn't raise an objection that means no one else, like a judge who should know about these things, can't raise the objection themselves when it's merited?
The judge can stop things, but they rarely will. It's entirely possible the opposing party *wants* a statement that's being made. In the Depp case, the Depp team *didn't* object to the hearsay when Heard's lawyer tried objecting to his own question. Another situation is that the party preserves issues for appeal by objecting and getting it on record. Also, if the judge steps in to fix things, that may influence the jury. They could see the issue as being a big deal because the judge acted, while lawyers objecting is a thing everyone would expect. Judges will only step in if things are getting out of hand.
Tell us about admissions against interest as an exception . If I’m not mistaken, if you told a cop you didn’t do a crime, that’s inadmissible hearsay and your defense lawyer can’t elicit that from the cop, but if you tell the cop you did the crime, the prosecutor can elicit that from the cop and it’s allowed.
If there's a targaryen who's an expert at law, this should be the one they cast for such role
🤣🤣🤣that’s a good one!! Ahhh…how I miss GOT!!
Helpful, Thank you. Also, blue hat started it.
I would actually love a hearsay case law deep dive if that's something you're interested in doing! I'm enjoying learning a lot more about particularly Canadian law, although I'm from the UK it's illuminating to see some of the differences and understand how they result in huge practical divergences.
Hey Geralt!
The one thing you did not explain well is that a statement can still be hearsay even when the declarant is the witness. Though you did explain the basis well. The witness can very credibly state "I said xyz" and be absolutely truthful, but whether xyz is true cannot be ascertained from that.
Ya so the other day I was… “objection here say”
You're explanation totally makes sense. Glad to have you as a fellow Edmontonite
Oh my, I've been calling myself an 'Edmontonian' for almost 20 years. Not sure how to feel about this. Can we get a ruling? 🇨🇦😂🍍
lol I totally missed the potential political implications of the red hat/blue hat fight, until you mentioned it and got me laughing
Out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Lawtube has taught me that I guess.
Poor Bob 😕
Gosh!! Bob has got a lot to answer for xD
what's the super cool song at the end of the video??? I LOVE IT 😍😍😍
hearsay is telling a story involving someone else outside of the court procedure or a witness already heard (if exception given the witness has to brought back)
Toss a coin to your Runkle!
Also good vid 😀
Excellent video.
in my opinion, hearsay is one of the more complex objections and this videos definitely helps👍👍
Hearsay-indirect knowledge that works in interest of the defendant or plaintiff.
Not admissible because, screw the little guy.
Hey Runkle, how close is my definition?
0:44 wait wait on a different point, how is he supposed to remember that? I don't even remember what I did on my own previous birthdays past 2 years ago
Objection, Hearsay
Poor Bob
So if Bob is on trial for murdering Jim and Tom testifies that Bob told him to his face that he murdered Jim, then Tom's testimony is hearsay? Do I have that right?
It is, but would fall into an exception: Admissions against interest/confessions.
@@RunkleOfTheBailey Is this why jailhouse snitches are so popular in American courtrooms?
yep your clear
This is who you get when you order Legolas on wish.
Let me guess … Lucius Malfoy's sweet, unknown baby brother?
Somebody send this to Amber Heard’s lawyer.
I saw my ex wife doing the same things before I divorced her ass
My understanding here would be that it depends on context then. If you are explaining your own actions, the fact that Bob said something may be relevant to your actions, but isn't relevant to prove Bob's actions.
For example: "I was driving to Bob's house because he said he was having a party" would be relevant if the question is to determine why you were driving towards Bob's house (and you are under oath as to what you heard Bob say, regardless of the truth of Bob's statement). However if the question was whether Bob was actually having a party, it would be hearsay as you can only say that he said he was, not whether he actually was.
Do I have that right?
If you are trying to establish that Bob told you he was having a party at his house, then you are a direct witness only to what he said. It may be useful if, say, Bob told somebody else he was in the hospital. Then they can squeeze Bob on why he said two different things and what he was actually doing. Or maybe there is other evidence that he wasn't having a party.
(Not a lawyer, but I think so anyway.)
Also, many of the exceptions seem to come down to whether the "hearsay" is the best evidence available.
So if I understand it correctly - when I was at bobs birthday party it wouldn’t be hearsay? Because I can testify that this party happened?
Thats just straight up a lie...
I don't understand how saying "I said X" can be hearsay.. since it's you saying what you yourself said. Just like you've been saying what you physically did, what things were like, what you thought, etc.
I think that, as a coment above explains it, it is because, since you weren't in the trial yet, you could of been lying without any consecuences.
In other words, saying "I said X" is not a lie (since you swore saying nothing but the truth), but the thing you said before could have been.
Ian, nice job explaining that ! When both lawyers approach the Bench, what are they saying to the judge ?
They are trying to take the judge to dinner
I’ve always wondered about that too
Am I right about this? From what I'm understanding, halfway through this video, my opinion is that AH's lawyer was wrong to claim hearsay about what JD said, that Josh said he was going to cook AH a special dinner. It seens like AH's lawyer was not thinking of context, and was just blindly calling hearsay in that particular instance.
If fucking Geralt from Rivia says that, it has to be true
Exit music was awesome