Legal expert uses OSU wrestling scandal to explain 'hearsay' to non-lawyer Jim Jordan

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Gym Jordan went to a 4th or 5th tier law school and was too stupid to take the bar exam. This Exhange made me smile

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-hearsay-osu-wrestlerrs/

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote, "You might want to read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Her testimony regarding Trump’s statements would be admissible in a criminal case against Trump."

Link to tweet

.....Attorney Ken White, a partner at Brown, White & Osborn, who blogs under the popular "Popehat" handle on Twitter, brought up Jordan's OSU scandal while explaining hearsay to the non-lawyer.

"So if a player comes up to you and says 'hey coach I went to the team doctor for a bloody nose and he grabbed my genitals instead,' that's not hearsay because he's not repeating an out-of-court statement, it's something that person perceived," White said, appearing to refer to allegations against Jordan by former OSU wrestler Tito Vazquez.

"But if people came to you and said 'hey coach a bunch of people are complaining that the team doctor is perving on them in the showers and doing gratuitous genital exams,' that would be hearsay, because they're talking about other people's statements," White explained.

"Now, say you were being sued for something -- say, some sort of grotesque dereliction of duty for failing to report or stop the serial sexual abuse of people under your care -- and a witness said 'I told coach about it and he said 'I have nothing to do with this.'' That's not hearsay either, because in that case you're a party opponent and a statement of a party opponent is not hearsay. Just like first-hand witness testimony about what Trump said would be a statement of a party opponent in, say, a prosecution of Trump," White explained.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=Ae2-3Xr1j6KJGjn2tLwwhQ

I enjoy PopeHat's posts

[Hekate]

1. I got a genuine chuckle out of that

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. It is not easy to make the hearsay rule funny

[Cha]

3. Whoa! I wondered about that..

not being a lawyer.. but that's a stunning explanation that even Gum Jordon should be able to understand.

Rts TY so much, LMPV!!

Link to tweet

[cloudboy07]

4. think ol'jock strap just got snapped ! failed lawyer !

[Mike Nelson]

5. Hey!

... this should become the standard definition of hearsay! It's simple enough for the most simple to understand!

[FBaggins]

6. Readers should be cautious when reading this

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2022, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

His post wasn’t really that none of it was hearsay. It was that it wasn’t ALL hearsay.

And I’m not even sure that his specific example is useful. He seems to be saying that the reported trump statement is a “statement against interest”. And that would be true IF it was reported by someone in the car. But that isn’t the case (at least yet).

On edit - the context, in this case, appears to be her statements re: what she heard him say re: getting rid of the "mags" so that the crowd he addressed would be larger. I"m not sure that there's much of a case to be made with that, but it would indeed avoid hearsay rules in court.