Talk:Hearsay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] exceptions v. rules

In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to say this: the exclusionary rule of hearsay itself is usually stated unequivocally: hearsay is inadmissible. However, the exceptions are numerous. There is fairly little hearsay evidence actually remaining not covered by any exception - especially when you add the residual exception - that anyone would ever have and seek to admit. Though the exceptions are many, not few, as Kingdon accurately states, the rule is far from dead, and to talk about it in such a way would be inaccurate. Often, we do see exceptions swallow the rule, but it hasn't been that way with hearsay. The rule is still alive, the objection is still frequently lodged. The party who seeks to avail himself of any of the many exceptions must meet the foundational requirements thereof. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

That all sounds about right. Feel free to tweak the wording. On Hearsay in United States law I put in a slightly different wording. But I didn't have handy a text on evidence, or something else which I could cite as saying "the exceptions cover the majority of cases" or "although the exceptions cover many common cases, courts are often called to rule on blah blah blah" or "it is still an active area of the law, as seen by the fact that the court is hearing Giles v. California in the 2007–2008 term" or whatever nuance seems roughly right without being too verbose. Kingdon (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary unless someone flags it or wants to start an edit war. I am happy with it the way it is. If people are concerned, they'll read this discussion. And then they'll be like, "woah, that guy [Lex] is really verbose." Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that this article is of high-importance. It's a highly technical rule and I can't imagine it's of any great interest to non-lawyers. What do others think? ElectricLemon (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a lawyer, so maybe my perspctive on this is unhelpful, I'll preface. The thing is, any U.S.-educated lawyer is going to know about this; if anything, it's least interesting to us. I think it would be of greater interest to non-lawyers who have heard the objection on TV, or in a book, or something (it shows up a lot more often on TV than in a real trial) and want to know, "what's the deal?" This article could be very helpful to people with that kind of curiosity, so I think we owe it to wiki to get it right, by which I mean, accuracy and clarity in this article are a high priority. The subject is probably too banal to be a GA or FA, and that isn't my goal, but hey, you never know... Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. ElectricLemon (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)