Hearsay Meaning

Hearsay and Confrontation Clause Analysis The word hearsay in matters of the law takes on a different and complicated definition compared to the use of the word in everyday language. In matters of the law, the definition of hearsay is rather technical, and is defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence as “a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” F.R.E 801 (c) (1) (2). In regard to the case in question, Mr. Cooper was tried and charged with the robbery of Ms. Aran’s jewelry box. At trial, the prosecution introduced four witnesses; the 911 operator who took Ms. Aran’s call, Detective Bandicoot,
Aran’s call on the night of the murder was rightfully admitted into evidence because it falls under the “Excited Utterance” exception. The Federal Rule of Evidence 803 (2) defines excited utterance as “A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition” Fed. R. Evid 803 (2). Since the 911 operator is testifying only to what Ms. Aran said on the original 911 call, the testimony should be admitted. This testimony was not introduced by the prosecution to prove that Mr. Cooper was guilty, but to establish that an emergency was occurring when Ms. Aran made the 911 call. In a similar case, Ware v. State, the court found that the 911 recordings and other telephone calls were allowed as evidence because the caller was under the stress of excitement (Ware v. State). In another similar case, State v. Edwards, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that 911 recording in question was admissible under the excited utterance exception because there was a startling event and the statements made during the call were made “under the stress caused by the event or condition” (State v. Edwards). Using this rationale, the testimony from the 911 operator was rightfully admitted as it is a hearsay
Cooper was not entirely admissible. The testimony from Det. Bandicoot should not have been admitted to trial because it contained hearsay in the form of Ms. Aran’s out-of-court statements and violated the defendant’s right to confront the witness against him. Since Ms. Aran elected not to testify at trial, all statements she made (excluding the excited utterance exception) should not have been used at trial. The testimony from the 911 operator, Mr. Daxter, and Ms. Esteed, however, were rightfully admitted because they were either not hearsay or hearsay exceptions under Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Evid.