One quick nuance (that I teach my team). It's stronger to say something is NOT hearsay than to say it's admissible under the exceptions. 801d rule outlines something that is NOT hearsay, the party opponent. The 803 rules are admitting that it is hearsay, but it's admissible. The contrast is that if we respond with "it's not hearsay" the burden is on the objection attorney to outline the components that make it hearsay: statement, declarant, offered for truth, not a prior statement nor the party opponent. When you use an 803 rule, the burden is on YOU to show how it meets the criteria for the exception. Sometimes, you don't have a choice and have to use an exception, and they're always there for those hearsay traps. But when given the choice, I drill my kids to try and establish it not being hearsay first, and then retreat to the exceptions if needed.
That can be true.. But remember: When you use a hearsay exception under Rule 803, it comes in for the truth of the matter asserted. That's not the case when you argue that something's definitionally not hearsay under Rule 801. It can be a major difference, especially when closing arguments roll around.
That can be true.. But remember: When you use a hearsay exception under Rule 803, it comes in for the truth of the matter asserted. That's not the case when you argue that something's definitionally not hearsay under Rule 801. It can be a major difference, especially when closing arguments roll around.
As someone who currently is victim to ongoing fraud on the court, we really, really, really, really, really need to have all party attorneys to take the #attorneyoath as to close the ability to "plantiffs" lawyer's to engage in #maliciousprosecution by allowing those corrupt attorneys to run amok and shield actual opposing party statements (1st exemption discussed FRE). Each case I was victim-defendant I raised and insisted the opposing party attorneys take the oath, and of course was denied and later found out the court was using illegal referees or the attorney-arb judge was insolvent and illegally allowed to take case with my rights of appeal denied by my state's supreme court (Minnesota)
What about presence sense expression? For example a child say, daddy my step dad grabbed my face on my cheeks, and you see that there are bruises on his face, would that hearsay be admitted?
Present sense impression has a time component to it; the rule deals with statements "made while or immediately after the declarant perceived" an event or condition. So, as far as that exception goes, you have to keep the time in mind.
Admission by a party opponent is NOT an exception to the hearsay rule as you stated @ 1:56 in the video. Rule 801d says that "admission by a party opponent" is NOT HEARSAY. No exception needed, It is simply not hearsay.
Based on the federal rules, you are technically correct. Some states actually list it as an exception under Rule 803 and exclude it from the hearsay definition under 801. Either way, it's semantics.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
These videos are very helpful thank you!
Thank YOU! Glad you’re here :-)
One quick nuance (that I teach my team). It's stronger to say something is NOT hearsay than to say it's admissible under the exceptions. 801d rule outlines something that is NOT hearsay, the party opponent. The 803 rules are admitting that it is hearsay, but it's admissible.
The contrast is that if we respond with "it's not hearsay" the burden is on the objection attorney to outline the components that make it hearsay: statement, declarant, offered for truth, not a prior statement nor the party opponent. When you use an 803 rule, the burden is on YOU to show how it meets the criteria for the exception.
Sometimes, you don't have a choice and have to use an exception, and they're always there for those hearsay traps. But when given the choice, I drill my kids to try and establish it not being hearsay first, and then retreat to the exceptions if needed.
That can be true.. But remember: When you use a hearsay exception under Rule 803, it comes in for the truth of the matter asserted. That's not the case when you argue that something's definitionally not hearsay under Rule 801. It can be a major difference, especially when closing arguments roll around.
That can be true.. But remember: When you use a hearsay exception under Rule 803, it comes in for the truth of the matter asserted. That's not the case when you argue that something's definitionally not hearsay under Rule 801. It can be a major difference, especially when closing arguments roll around.
Very good point!
Thank you!!
As someone who currently is victim to ongoing fraud on the court, we really, really, really, really, really need to have all party attorneys to take the #attorneyoath as to close the ability to "plantiffs" lawyer's to engage in #maliciousprosecution by allowing those corrupt attorneys to run amok and shield actual opposing party statements (1st exemption discussed FRE). Each case I was victim-defendant I raised and insisted the opposing party attorneys take the oath, and of course was denied and later found out the court was using illegal referees or the attorney-arb judge was insolvent and illegally allowed to take case with my rights of appeal denied by my state's supreme court (Minnesota)
What about presence sense expression? For example a child say, daddy my step dad grabbed my face on my cheeks, and you see that there are bruises on his face, would that hearsay be admitted?
Present sense impression has a time component to it; the rule deals with statements "made while or immediately after the declarant perceived" an event or condition. So, as far as that exception goes, you have to keep the time in mind.
@@mocktrialmasterclass thanks for the info I truly appreciate your time.
Admission by a party opponent is NOT an exception to the hearsay rule as you stated @ 1:56 in the video. Rule 801d says that "admission by a party opponent" is NOT HEARSAY. No exception needed, It is simply not hearsay.
Based on the federal rules, you are technically correct. Some states actually list it as an exception under Rule 803 and exclude it from the hearsay definition under 801. Either way, it's semantics.