They can sure as fuck call him up as a hostile witness- victim and the friend who said it/posted it. And you sure as fuck can introduce evidence of what someone told you. Are you fucking kidding me? You're not American, are you?
Dude, it's not hearsay when you call Bicep-boy's little soyfriend there up to the stand and ask him to repeat, under oath, what Bicep-boy said about the subject.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So when soyfriend is asked to repeat what bicep-boyfriend said previously out of court, that is hearsay. If bicep-boyfriend wants to repeat it in court, it’s no longer hearsay.
“For example, a court could bar Claire’s statement to a police officer that Bob had a gun and was acting like a maniac with either the hearsay rule or the Confrontation Clause.” the police can’t repeat what someone told them in a police report, but if the police had TWEETED what they were told by the witness, THEN SURELY it’s admissible. Jesus fucking Christ.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/hearsay-criminal-cases.html
Objection, hearsay.
Unless you’ve got a reason why you’re asking him about that other than because you’re trying to get in what Gaige said for the truth of what Gaige said, it’d be sustained. The prosecutor would object when you asked about the tweet. Before you brought that printout to the witness you’d need to show the prosecution and the judge, and the prosecutor would object and the judge would sustain. Hearsay isn’t no longer hearsay because it was said outside of court. That makes 0 sense. You didn’t discover a loophole. “Hey witness, quick tweet what you’re going to testify about so that none of the hearsay is hearsay!” No. The law isn’t a stupid computer that can’t anticipate a work around. The judge and prosecutors aren’t brain dead. You’re asking about what Gaige said. If you’re asking about what Soyboy said that Gaige said you better have a good reason for it, one that has nothing to do with whether or not what Gaige said was true, and one that’s more probative than prejudicial here (since that hearsay you’re trying to sneak in would be highly prejudicial).
How stupid do you have to be to think you can get around hearsay by changing the testimony from “he said X” to “I said he said X” when in both instances the X is the important part.
You really don’t understand what hearsay is, huh? What you said is exactly hearsay unless one-arm is a party opponent. You would need an exception to get that in. You’d have to call one-arm himself in, under oath, and ask him what he said. I’ll keep repeating this until you get it
No, that IS hearsay. But what you can do is bring up bicep boy and have him say what he said, and then bring in the friend and have him say what he said - not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to impeach the witness as a liar, and then let the jury do with that information what it wants
Hearsay is inadmissible in court. So the defence won't be having a field day with it.
They can sure as fuck call him up as a hostile witness- victim and the friend who said it/posted it. And you sure as fuck can introduce evidence of what someone told you. Are you fucking kidding me? You're not American, are you?
5000 mafia henchmen are giggling at you right now. 5th ammendment, fren.
The 5th is only for self-incrimination. It doesn't allow you to 'not testify' on someone else's behalf.
Dude, it's not hearsay when you call Bicep-boy's little soyfriend there up to the stand and ask him to repeat, under oath, what Bicep-boy said about the subject.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So when soyfriend is asked to repeat what bicep-boyfriend said previously out of court, that is hearsay. If bicep-boyfriend wants to repeat it in court, it’s no longer hearsay.
Lawdog - "Mr Soyfriend, this is your tweet, is it not? One you composed yourself."
Soyfriend - "It is."
L - "In it, you claim Armless stated he regrets not killing the defendant. Is that correct?"
S - "Err... Yeah, I did."
L - "Now, remember you're under oath, Mr Soyfriend. When did Armless tell you of his regret?"
S - "Uh... when I visited him at the hospital?"
“For example, a court could bar Claire’s statement to a police officer that Bob had a gun and was acting like a maniac with either the hearsay rule or the Confrontation Clause.” the police can’t repeat what someone told them in a police report, but if the police had TWEETED what they were told by the witness, THEN SURELY it’s admissible. Jesus fucking Christ. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/hearsay-criminal-cases.html
Objection, hearsay. Unless you’ve got a reason why you’re asking him about that other than because you’re trying to get in what Gaige said for the truth of what Gaige said, it’d be sustained. The prosecutor would object when you asked about the tweet. Before you brought that printout to the witness you’d need to show the prosecution and the judge, and the prosecutor would object and the judge would sustain. Hearsay isn’t no longer hearsay because it was said outside of court. That makes 0 sense. You didn’t discover a loophole. “Hey witness, quick tweet what you’re going to testify about so that none of the hearsay is hearsay!” No. The law isn’t a stupid computer that can’t anticipate a work around. The judge and prosecutors aren’t brain dead. You’re asking about what Gaige said. If you’re asking about what Soyboy said that Gaige said you better have a good reason for it, one that has nothing to do with whether or not what Gaige said was true, and one that’s more probative than prejudicial here (since that hearsay you’re trying to sneak in would be highly prejudicial).
How stupid do you have to be to think you can get around hearsay by changing the testimony from “he said X” to “I said he said X” when in both instances the X is the important part.
You really don’t understand what hearsay is, huh? What you said is exactly hearsay unless one-arm is a party opponent. You would need an exception to get that in. You’d have to call one-arm himself in, under oath, and ask him what he said. I’ll keep repeating this until you get it
No, that IS hearsay. But what you can do is bring up bicep boy and have him say what he said, and then bring in the friend and have him say what he said - not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to impeach the witness as a liar, and then let the jury do with that information what it wants
There’s like 60 exceptions to a hearsay objection. A good lawyer will find one