What is the relationship between the history of the hearsay rule and the history of the trial by jury?

Answer 1

The history of the right of Trial by Jury goes back to well before the US. The Magna Carta in the 11th century makes reference to trial by peers, although this at that point only referred to the nobility being tried by nobles, and not the itenerant judges which rode circuit throughout the kingdom.

The hearsay rule is a legislative enactmactment, and is designed to give the parties to a suit the right to have the best possible evidence against them. However, there are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule. I won't go into it here. You might want to check out a book on the history of jurisprudence. Ask your local librarian for more assistance

Answer 2

In the US, the hearsay rule and the trial by jury both arise out of the 6th Amendment.

The 6th Amendment guarantees "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". The 7th Amendment provides for a trial by jury for civil suits over a certain dollar amount in controversy. This 6th Amendment protection is applied against state criminal trials via the 14th Amendment, but not the 7th (civil) trial right.

The hearsay rule make it generally inadmissible to enter as evidence "an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted". The core reasoning behind the hearsay rule (and many of its exceptions) is the 6th Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against [the accused]" and to a lesser extent, "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". Having someone testify as to out-of-court statements does not allow the accused to confront the declarant (the person who originally spoke) and thus violates the right to confront a potential "witness" if the hearsay testimony was allowed.

This is the same reason for many of the exceptions and exemptions to hearsay. Where the words of the accused are being offered (i.e. where the accused is the declarant), the declarant is available as a party to refute the statements alleged. Also, where the accused had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the declarant at a prior hearing, that prior testimony is generally admitted because there was the opportunity to confront (in the past).

Most of the other exemptions deal with a literal defect, such as when the statement is not being offered for its truth but rather its effect on the listener or to show knowledge or state of mind on the part of the speaker.