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.

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 “he said X” to “I said he said X” when in both instances the X is the important part.

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).

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’s more probative than prejudicial here (since that hearsay you’re trying to sneak in would be highly prejudicial).

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.

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. Are you admitting the tweet into evidence? Hearsay isn’t 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.

Objection, hearsay