Also known as:double-hearsay · hearsay within hearsay
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay statement that contains further hearsay statements within it. Each layer of the combined statements must independently satisfy a hearsay exception or exclusion for the entire statement to be admissible.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Insurance Adjuster Chain
Everett called neighbor Charles to testify that Everett had said the insurance adjuster told him a company investigator reported the fire chief's preliminary opinion that the fire looked intentionally set. The court admitted the testimony after determining that the fire chief's opinion qualified as a present sense impression, the investigator's report fit a business record exception, and the adjuster's statement to Everett constituted a party admission. Pacific Indemnity's objection failed because every layer in the chain met its own exception.
Physician Survey Summary
Schering offered the Gengler Analysis, a Pfizer document that summarized the FasTape Survey containing physicians' out-of-court descriptions of detailings. The court required separate analysis of the physicians' statements and the survey summary itself. Because the physicians' descriptions qualified as party admissions under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), the document survived double hearsay scrutiny and was admitted.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal Rules
Casebooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc.189 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 1999)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
How does a court determine whether double hearsay is admissible?+
The court examines each layer of the statement separately. If every component satisfies its own hearsay exception or exclusion, the combined statement is admissible under Rule 805. Failure of any single layer renders the entire statement inadmissible.
Supporting sources
Does the presence of multiple layers automatically exclude the evidence?+
No. The rule against hearsay does not bar testimony merely because multiple speakers are involved. Admission turns on whether each individual statement satisfies an exception on its own terms.
Supporting sources
What happens when one layer in a double hearsay chain fails to qualify?+
The entire composite statement is excluded. Rule 805 requires conformity at every level, and courts do not relax that requirement merely because outer layers are admissible.
Supporting sources
588 F.2d 626 (1978)Evidence
…rule, it should be. He feels that is mandated by Rules 805 and 403. Rule 805 recites, in effect, that a statement containing hearsay within hearsay is admissible if each part of the statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. Rule 805, however, deals only with hearsay exceptions. A statement based on the personal knowledge…
EvidencePresentation of evidence · Objections and offers of proofNEXTGENIntermediate