Also known as: out-of-court statements · out of court statement · extrajudicial statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statement that a declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing.
Oscar Ortiz told officers at the station that his brother had stabbed the victim. At trial the prosecution offered the statement against the brother. The court excluded it because the brother had no prior opportunity to cross-examine Oscar.
Orlando Okafor held a televised press conference and described evidence he expected to present at trial. At a later hearing the prosecution offered a transcript of the remarks to prove facts about the case. The court excluded the transcript as hearsay because it was an out-of-court statement offered for its truth.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Omar Olson told reporters that his client would prove the prosecution's star witness was lying. At a subsequent proceeding the defense offered the published remarks to show the witness's motive. The court admitted the remarks because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Olivia Owens called 911 while her husband was attacking her and described the ongoing assault. At trial the prosecution offered the recording. The court admitted the statements because they were made during an ongoing emergency rather than to establish past facts for later prosecution.
Osprey Aviation's manager told a buyer that the company would falsify safety records to meet a deadline. The buyer later repeated the statement to investigators. The court refused to admit the statement against other executives because it was made after the conspiracy's main objective had ended.
Onyx Pharmaceuticals' chemist told agents that the company's president had ordered dilution of test samples. The prosecution offered the statement against the president at trial. The court excluded it because the statement was not made during and in furtherance of the charged conspiracy.
A statement is testimonial when the declarant makes it under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect it to be used prosecutorially, such as during a police interrogation aimed at establishing past facts. Casual remarks to acquaintances are not testimonial. The distinction determines whether the statement may be admitted without cross-examination.
Yes. An out-of-court statement is hearsay only when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If offered merely to show the statement was made or its effect on the listener, the rule does not apply.
A lawyer's statement may be admitted against the client when the lawyer is authorized to speak on the subject. Authorization must be shown. The statement alone does not establish its own admissibility under the party-opponent exclusion.
…mean that it has no application to such statements. This Court has long held that the right of confrontation does not apply to out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The text of the Confrontation Clause reflects this focus. It applies to “witnesses” against the accused—those who bear…