....apparently this idiot isn't knowledgeable enough to know that "Hearsay" isn't admissible in a court of Law. .... Originally Posted by Levianon17"Hearsay"is admissible "in a court of law" based on codified and case law exceptions to the general rule and the nature of the hearing. With respect to this specific proceeding ....
... the nature of this proceeding is consistent with a grand jury investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support an "impreachment" (indictment in criminal cases), in which case "hearsay" is admissible for that limited purpose and focus.
THE question is whether or not the "hearsay" rises to the level of credibility, which is generally for the "trier of fact" to determine, unless it rises to the level of "implausibility" .... such as the point I have made regarding someone being able to hear what someone else is saying on the other end of cell phone call in a moving vehicle or a restaurant.
As an aside: "hearsay" will support a search warrant order.
The exceptions to the hearsay rule are crafted along the lines of attempting to assure the credibility of the offered testimony, which is the underlying purpose of the basic rule.
99.99% of the time a jury instruction has a definition of "circumstantial evidence" and accompanying directives to the jury that they may consider "circumstantial evidence" in their decision, one way or the other. "Hearsay evidence" is often "circumstantial" .... e.g. an "excited utterance" which is an exception to the general "hearsay" rule.
