Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Is it foolhardy to make numerous spelling and factual mistakes when trying to look smart?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay...ted_States_law
With few exceptions, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States.
Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.
Hearsay evidence, if permitted in a civil proceeding, should be given little weight in most cases. Especially multiple third party, non-contemporaneus hearsay.
Ex. Civil Evidence Act, UK:
http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1995Civil_EvidenceAct.shtml
(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.
(2) Regard may be had, in particular, to the following - - (a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;
(b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matter stated;
(c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;
(d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;
(e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another for a particular purpose; (f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.
The parol evidence rule is specific to the law of contract:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_evidence_rule
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/referen...ence_app_e.htm
Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein.
Hearsay evidence is thought to be generally untrustworthy
Hearsay evidence may be admitted where its admission is necessary to prove a fact in issue and the evidence is reliable.3
"The criterion of "reliability" -- or, in Wigmore's terminology, the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness -- is a function of the circumstances under which the statement in question was made. If a statement sought to be adduced by way of hearsay evidence is made under circumstances which substantially negate the possibility that the declarant was untruthful or mistaken, the hearsay evidence may be said to be "reliable", i.e., a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness is established."4 |
I don't know what's more amusing, you using Wikipedia to attempt to solidify your stance or the fact that you claim to be of the legal school of thought. First off, Little does not equate to none. Secondly the very idea you attempt to draw a tenuous link between the legal system and the weight of anthropological evidence is incredibly humorous. Give yourself a pat on the back, you've earned the angst-filled, angry immature pseudo-intellectual achievement.
Go continue spouting your wiki-borne knowledge to the masses, and if you truly belong to the law profession in Canada, go take a look at General Tire Canada INC. v. Aylwards LTD. Don't forget since you are a professional your "opinion" does in fact equate to advice. Rational individuals would do better for themselves than to resort to spouting idealogical crap from the mouth of the internet's forum of idiots.
Back up your claims with some relevant legal posturing rather than utilizing oft used argument of how what you claim to be "Hearsay" as entirely unimportant.
But I will congratulate you on one thing, you have made me laugh at how stupid internet "experts" can claim to be. You sir typify the very reason why democracy is so riddled with flaws.
Congrats!