Also known as: FRE 801 · Fed. R. Evid. 801 · Rule 801 · hearsay definitions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Federal Rule of Evidence that defines a statement as a person's oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion and a declarant as the person who made the statement. The rule further specifies that hearsay is a statement the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing and that a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rule excludes from the hearsay definition certain prior statements by testifying witnesses and statements offered against an opposing party.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Marvin testified at trial that he never saw loose planking on the scaffolding. Jasper confronted him on cross with a recorded interview in which Marvin had identified Metro's safety manager as the person who overruled requests to secure the scaffolding. Because the interview was not given under oath at a proceeding, it did not qualify as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) and the court excluded it when offered for its truth.
The court admitted a hearsay statement by Geraldine describing a management directive to ignore safety leaks. South Grid then offered evidence that Geraldine had made an inconsistent statement two weeks earlier. The court permitted the inconsistent statement to attack Geraldine's credibility even though she never testified and had no opportunity to explain the inconsistency.
Rainey offered portions of a military investigative report that contained evaluative conclusions about the aircraft crash. Beech Aircraft objected that the conclusions were hearsay. The court admitted the conclusions because they were part of a report that satisfied the requirements for admission under the rule defining nonhearsay statements.
The government offered a co-conspirator's out-of-court narrative that shifted blame to Williamson for the drug transaction. Williamson objected that the narrative was unreliable hearsay. The court excluded the portions that were self-serving because they did not qualify as nonhearsay statements of a party opponent.
Lonardo told an FBI informant that he was coordinating a cocaine transaction with petitioner K.C. The government offered the statement against petitioner to prove his participation in the conspiracy. The court admitted the statement after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed and that petitioner participated in it.
Miller made an out-of-court statement acknowledging possession of a firearm. The government offered the statement against Miller at trial to prove the element of possession. The court admitted the statement as nonhearsay because it was an opposing party's own statement offered against that party.
A prior inconsistent statement is admissible for its truth only if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination and the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition. Statements that fail the oath requirement remain hearsay when offered for their truth even if they may be used for impeachment.
Supporting sources
…on the recorded conversation itself in determining that a conspiracy existed for purposes of applying the hearsay exception in Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Held: 1. The Confrontation Clause does not require a court to determine the admissibility of a co-conspirator’s hearsay statement under an independent standard of proof that…
…panel judgment. On the Rule 106 question, the court unanimously reaffirmed the panel's decision that Rule
…is not at issue here.) A. T.'s out-of-court statements, recounted by the six witnesses, were offered by the Government under Rule 801
…under other provisions of Rules 801-804. For instance, statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy may be admissible under
No. Rule 801(d)(2) defines such statements as not hearsay when offered against the opposing party. The statement need not have been made in the presence of the offering party and may be admitted for its truth once the foundational requirements of subsections (A) through (E) are met.
Supporting sources
The court must determine by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered participated in the conspiracy. The court may consider the statement itself along with other evidence in making this preliminary determination.
Supporting sources
The prior consistent statement must predate the alleged motive to fabricate. Once that timing requirement is satisfied and the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, the statement is excluded from the hearsay definition and may be used as substantive evidence.
Supporting sources