Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MerryHolidays

(7,715 posts)
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 05:47 PM Jun 2022

Cassidy Hutchinson's "hearsay" - The "excited utterance" exception

Please don't fall for any of the nonsense that Ms. Hutchinson's testimony yesterday about the ketchup-flinging Backseat Strangler's hissy fit in his limo/SUV/"Beast/whatever was "hearsay."

First, that's absurd: hearsay rules apply in court, not a Congressional hearing. It's a rule of evidence that has no relevancy anywhere except a court.

Second, NO one is disputing that Trump did not want to go back to the White House. He WANTED to go to the Capitol. Whether he lunged/strangled/hissy-fitted is a tangential issue. That is the key issue: he wanted to be there with the mob on January 6. Why?

Third, even if Ms. Hutchinson's testimony was somehow "hearsay", that doesn't diminish anything. She clearly stated that this is what she is told. That's it, nothing more.

Fourth, she was under oath. No one else has publicly been under oath thus far on these issues. Let's see them under oath.

Fifth, there is an "excited utterance" exception to hearsay, to the extent that's even relevant. Basically, credibility is given to "excited utterances" since it's believed that statements made under stress/surprise are credible. I've mangled that a bit, but the bottom line is that Ornato and Engler were speaking about an event (the Strangler's lunging) that arose at a stressful time, while the January 6 insurrection was ONGOING. That's about the quintessential definition of an "excited utterance," which is a clear and well-known exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay. But again, ONLY in a court of law, not a Congressional hearing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance

In other words, like everything else about Trump, it's smoke, mirrors, distortions, innuendo, and lies. Par for the course.

You did well, Cassidy Hutchinson. VERY WELL.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cassidy Hutchinson's "hearsay" - The "excited utterance" exception (Original Post) MerryHolidays Jun 2022 OP
And just like that gratuitous Jun 2022 #1
Federal Rule of Evidence 803, setting out exceptions to the hearsay rule. rsdsharp Jun 2022 #4
Absolutely. Just after the hearing end yesterday, Jake Tapper interviewed Jamie Raskin MerryHolidays Jun 2022 #7
Here's what I think. Mr.Bill Jun 2022 #2
Thank you for the clarity on this "issue." Sogo Jun 2022 #3
Two men talkin' bull with a pretty girl PurgedVoter Jun 2022 #5
Exactly TheRealNorth Jun 2022 #6
The ONLY thing that makes me wonder is this: oldsoftie Jun 2022 #8
'Hearsay' is when a witness testifies about something they didn't see or hear firsthand, 70sEraVet Jun 2022 #9
Well, you have the situation where Hutchinson is giving them all of this information, everyonematters Jun 2022 #10

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
1. And just like that
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 05:50 PM
Jun 2022

All the experts on pandemics became legal scholars on the complexities of the Hearsay Rule for proceedings that aren't subject to the rule. These are, of course, the same credulous folks who cite the VAERS website for irrefutable proof of the inefficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines.

rsdsharp

(9,165 posts)
4. Federal Rule of Evidence 803, setting out exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 05:56 PM
Jun 2022

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
Primary tabs
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:

(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and

(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:

(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;

(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and

(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:

(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;

(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and

(C) neither the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:

(A) it sets out:

(i) the office’s activities;

(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or

(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and

(B) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:

(A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that

(i) the record or statement does not exist; or

(ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and

(B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice — unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.

(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:

(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;

(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and

(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.

(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.

(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:

(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;

(B) the record is kept in a public office; and

(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.

(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.

(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.

(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.

(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:

(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;

(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;

(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and

(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.

The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:

(A) was essential to the judgment; and

(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.

(24) [Other Exceptions .]

MerryHolidays

(7,715 posts)
7. Absolutely. Just after the hearing end yesterday, Jake Tapper interviewed Jamie Raskin
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 06:04 PM
Jun 2022

Tapper was obsessed with the Backseat Strangler's limo hissy fit, to the large exception of everything else. It's a salacious detail, and shows our least favorite Strangler was unhinged, but that's about it. If anything was legally important, it was that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol with the mob. That's the most shocking thing about this particular episode (meaning these couple of minutes or so).

Good ole' Ivy League-educated Tapper focuses on the least important thing. He really needs a clue.

Mr.Bill

(24,282 posts)
2. Here's what I think.
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 05:52 PM
Jun 2022

No way did Trump want to go to the Capitol building. He's far too much of a coward to go anywhere there was violence going on. The SS guys made up the story to cover for his cowardice.

Just speculation on my part but I think it fits Trump's personality better than anything else.

Sogo

(4,986 posts)
3. Thank you for the clarity on this "issue."
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 05:52 PM
Jun 2022

It, indeed, is distraction from the more sensational aspect of her testimony.

The serious crimes remain....THAT IS what's sensational!

PurgedVoter

(2,216 posts)
5. Two men talkin' bull with a pretty girl
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 06:03 PM
Jun 2022

Who doesn't think they embroidered the tale as far as they could? These are Trumpsters. One of them left the SS to take on even more duties for TFG. He was extremely trusted by TFG. In context, if TFG trusts a person to manage a wide range of issues, a lot of them delicate, just how much can we trust that person to stick to the truth? I would say that Trumps faith in him precludes the possibility that anything he ever says is ever true.

A person who witnessed TFG in action and then after time has passed, remained fully loyal to TFG is not a person you can trust to see or tell the truth.

TheRealNorth

(9,478 posts)
6. Exactly
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 06:04 PM
Jun 2022

I seem to remember something about a "Recall Order" and "Benghazi" that Republicans put out there that was based on nothing more than hearsay. At least in this case, we can verify that the people in the story are in a position to know, not some friend of a friend that is unidentified so we don't even know if they are who they say they are.

oldsoftie

(12,531 posts)
8. The ONLY thing that makes me wonder is this:
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 08:38 PM
Jun 2022

If he's in the limo he's not going to be near the front of the car or the steering wheel.
But I have little doubt that he wanted the metal detectors removed

70sEraVet

(3,493 posts)
9. 'Hearsay' is when a witness testifies about something they didn't see or hear firsthand,
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 08:38 PM
Jun 2022

and you wished they hadn't.

everyonematters

(3,433 posts)
10. Well, you have the situation where Hutchinson is giving them all of this information,
Wed Jun 29, 2022, 11:32 PM
Jun 2022

and anyone closer to Trump is either refusing to testify or taking the fifth. If she is not telling the truth the people closer to Trump can talk. Yes, it is an investigation and not a trial. Most people are going to see what is going on here.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Cassidy Hutchinson's "hea...