Respond to the two posts adding substance/content. Response should be a minimum of 200 words.

Post 1

Hearsay evidence is generally not allowed in criminal trials because it is considered unreliable and weak. The main issue with hearsay is that the original speaker is not present in court to be cross-examined. This makes it impossible to test whether the statement is accurate or truthful under oath. Without the chance to question the person who made the statement, the court risks admitting evidence that cannot be properly challenged. As Donnelly (1955) points out, hearsay is seen as inherently untrustworthy because it does not come from someone who personally witnessed the event. Olarinde and Idem (2019) further explain that hearsay is viewed as too weak to be relied on in court because it lacks the opportunity for cross-examination, which is a key part of the adversarial system that ensures fairness. The main goal of excluding hearsay is to avoid wrongful convictions by making sure that only reliable, tested evidence is considered.

However, there are several well-known exceptions to the hearsay rule because some out-of-court statements are still considered trustworthy. One of these is the excited utterance exception. This applies when someone makes a statement in reaction to a shocking or startling event while still under emotional stress. The idea is that the person is too overwhelmed by the event to have the time or presence of mind to make up a lie (Janssen, 2002; Blair, 2004). For example, if someone immediately screams, "He's got a gun!" right after witnessing a shooting, this would likely be admissible because the statement was made in the heat of the moment.

Another common exception is the spontaneous statement, which is similar to an excited utterance. This is when someone makes a quick statement in response to an event, without time to plan or fabricate a false story. The key idea here is that the spontaneity of the statement makes it more likely to be true (Bruno, 2013). Both excited utterances and spontaneous statements rely on the assumption that a person caught in a moment of shock or surprise is speaking honestly without time to mislead.

The third exception is admissions by a party opponent. This is when the defendant in the case has made a statement that can be used against them at trial. These statements are not considered hearsay because the legal system assumes people would not willingly make statements that hurt their own case unless they are true (Pinsler, 2022). Also, there's no need to cross-examine a person about their own words because they are in the courtroom and can be questioned.

Personally, I fully agree with the rule that hearsay should not be allowed in court unless it fits one of these valid exceptions.

Allowing hearsay freely would seriously damage the fairness of trials and could easily lead to wrongful convictions. The right to cross-examine witnesses is a cornerstone of the justice system, and hearsay prevents that. Even though some people argue that hearsay might not always harm a case, I believe the rule is necessary to maintain fairness and protect the rights of the accused (Sevier, 2015). The exceptions to the hearsay rule exist for very good reasons as they allow certain reliable statements in, while still guarding against unfair prejudice.

Post 2

There are typically three different reasons why hearsay evidence is generally not allowed as evidence during a trial. The first reason hearsay evidence is not allowed is because the person who made the statement originally is not present in the courtroom to testify their exact words. The inability to have the original declarant available to testify leaves much room for misinterpretation of the statement made. The second reason hearsay evidence is not allowed is because the attorney of the opposing side is unable to cross-examine the witness, which is a violation of their Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against them. The third reason hearsay evidence is not allowed is because the judge and the jury are unable to see the original declarant, so they are unable to assess the person's demeanor in order to make a decision on the credibility of the witness (Weisberg Kainen Mark 2016).

Excited Utterances: A statement made by the witness, who was under stress, during a startling event (Cornell Law School n.d.). These utterances are an exception to the hearsay rule because the declarant is less likely to make up a statement when under stress and during startling events.

Spontaneous Statements: This is another term for excited utterances and is often used interchangeably with it. These statements are an exception to the hearsay rule for the same reason as excited utterances.

Admissions (by Party Opponent): This is a statement that is offered against an opposing party and meets one of these criterion:

1. The statement was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity.
2. The statement was made by someone the party authorized to make statements on the topic.
3. The statement is one the party believed to be true.
4. The statement is made by the party's agent or employee on matters that were within the scope and length of their relationship.
5. The statement was made by the party's coconspirator during the conspiracy (Cornell Law School n.d.).

Admissions are an exception to the hearsay rule because the opposing party is unlikely to submit false evidence that is against them.

I agree with the rule that hearsay (absent a viable exception) should be inadmissible in trial. I feel this way because there is so much that people could manipulate, over-exaggerate, misinterpret, and falsify that hearsay cannot be admissible.