Also known as: declarants
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A person who makes a statement. In evidence law the term identifies the individual whose out-of-court words or assertive conduct are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, triggering hearsay analysis and related rules on availability, confrontation, and impeachment.
Deanna Davenport submitted a declaration in support of her motion for summary judgment against Decker Electronics. The declaration recounted her personal observations of the defective circuit boards during the manufacturing run. Because the statements rested on her firsthand knowledge and would be admissible at trial, the court considered them under the personal-knowledge requirement for declarations.
Delilah Duran testified that Destiny Davis had taken the missing funds. On cross-examination defense counsel implied Duran had recently fabricated the account to curry favor with her new employer. The prosecution offered Duran's email sent six months earlier describing the same events. The email was admissible as a prior consistent statement by the declarant to rebut the charge of recent fabrication.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Demetrius Douglas was prosecuted for assault. The state offered a recorded statement given by Darrell Duncan during a formal police-station interview describing the attack. Because the statement was testimonial and Douglas had never had an opportunity to cross-examine Duncan, the court excluded it under the Confrontation Clause even though Duncan was unavailable at trial.
Devon Drake was charged with robbery. At trial the victim identified Drake in court as the assailant. The prosecution also introduced the victim's earlier statement to police in which he had identified Drake from a photo array as the person he had seen during the crime. The earlier identification by the declarant was admissible as nonhearsay.
Delta Dynamics sought to introduce a former employee's out-of-court statement against Dillon Energy. The employee had been threatened and then paid to leave the country by an agent of Delta Dynamics. Because the proponent had wrongfully caused the declarant's unavailability, the court refused to treat the employee as unavailable under the rule.
Davenport Pharmaceuticals introduced a letter in which its former president stated an intention to travel to Chicago to meet with a key supplier. The letter was offered to prove that the president had in fact gone to Chicago the following week. The statement of then-existing intent by the declarant was admissible to prove subsequent conduct in accordance with that intent.
The declarant is the person who made the statement contained in the document, not the custodian or the person offering the document at trial.
No. The Clause applies only to testimonial statements by an unavailable declarant when the defendant had no prior opportunity for cross-examination.
A prior consistent statement is admissible as nonhearsay when offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or to rehabilitate credibility on another ground, provided the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.
A declarant is unavailable if exempted by privilege, refuses to testify despite a court order, testifies to a lack of memory, is unable to attend because of death or illness, or is absent despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance, unless the proponent wrongfully caused the unavailability.
No. Rule 56(c)(4) requires that an affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose summary judgment be made on personal knowledge and show that the declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
…custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially," Brief for Petitioner 23; "extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions,…