Court Disallows 8 Hearsay Statements

Yesterday, the Third Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the trial court’s ruling to exclude eight statements from being admitted into evidence in the murder trial of Drew Peterson. Peterson was formally charged with the murder of his third wife when his fourth wife was mysteriously found dead in her bathtub.

In cases such as the Peterson trial, where direct evidence can be hard to come by, prosecutors often rely on hearsay and its many exceptions in order to have some damning evidence entered into the record.

What is Hearsay?

Hearsay is any out of court statement, made by any person, being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. As a general rule, hearsay is not allowed to be admitted as evidence. Out of court means any other venue other than this current trial. Thus, even statements made during other court proceedings are considered out of court.

For example, if a defendant shouts out his bedroom window “I killed my neighbor!”, that statement, made out of court, later being used against the defendant for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that he killed the neighbor, would be considered hearsay. Thus, prosecutors would have to prove that the defendant’s statement fell under an exception to the Hearsay Rule in order to be admitted into evidence at trial.

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

There are many exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. Some common relevant exceptions to the rule include: statements made contemporaneous with an event, excited utterances (that man just hit that woman!), dying declaration (he just shot me, I am dying), or business records.

Why Do Hearsay Limitations Matter?

The Hearsay Rule remains in place in order to protect people from statements they have made that may be untrue, but to allow for the reliability and integrity of evidence. In addition to people purposely lying, for example, allowing hearsay generally may allow for gossip to become evidence.

In one of the other exceptions to the Hearsay Rule, a prior inconsistent statement, for example, the Federal Rules of Evidence require that the prior statement be made under penalty of perjury (oath), so that the declarant (person who made the statement), was presumably telling the truth at that earlier time. Thus, the inconsistency of the two statements under oath is generally reliable proof that only one of the two positions is the actual truth.

Click for more information about Criminal Law.