2007-02-27 14:18:30 · 12 answers · asked by Double O 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because the person who the evidence is being offered against does not have an opportunity to cross examine the person making the accusation.
2007-02-27 14:31:53 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, the question itself is false, because there are some exceptions to hearsay being inadmissible. I won't go into those because that's not what you asked.
The reason why hearsay is generally inadmissible is because to admit it denies the other side the opportunity to cross-examine the person whose testimony is being received, which is the person whose out of court statement is being repeated, and moreover, the statement itself wasn't made under oath.
Imagine Bob Marley being put on trial for Murder, how many people do you think we could get to testify that they heard him proclaiming in a loud voice "I shot the sherrif".
2007-02-27 14:24:45 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rules of evidence prohibit the statement because the statement , if hearsay, is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted within the statement, and there is no way to prove that the statement is in fact true. However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule to get the statement in.
2007-02-27 14:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by AAAA 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because any statements given as evidence must allow for the other side to challenge and/ or cross-examine the one making the statement. Hearsay is a statement given as evidence that does not allow for cross-examination. The original speaker is not there in court to be questioned by anyone.
2007-02-27 14:24:46 · answer #4 · answered by normobrian 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the main reason (not being a lawyer) is that you have a right to face your accuser and to cross examine a witness. A person giving hearsay is not testifying to what they know just what someone else said. There is no way to cross examine the assertions made 2nd hand.
2007-02-27 14:22:34 · answer #5 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are exceptions whereby hearsay can be admitted . . . but not for the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, it can be admitted to show state-of-mind of the hearer, for example, It can also be admitted under exceptions such as dying declaration and so forth.
2007-02-27 14:24:52 · answer #6 · answered by foolrex 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because ONLY the person who says the things, has to be present to back it up.
Otherwise, we could make up anything and say we heard it from a 3rd party.
Also, sometimes what we hear, someone say, is often taken out of context, and interpted in our own minds.
We often add a bit to what we've heard a person say, so it's not thier exact words. that's why.
2007-02-27 14:22:39 · answer #7 · answered by Lilly 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the person could be lying without any factual evidence to back up their claims.
2007-02-27 14:21:21 · answer #8 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For one reason.. the person who actually said it isn't under oath and on the stand.
2007-02-27 14:22:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there is no proof that what was said was really said or not and anybody can lie and get away with it.
2007-02-27 14:22:19 · answer #10 · answered by Akbar B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋