Criminology and Criminal Justice Assignment: Hearsay Evidence

This assignment explores the concept of hearsay evidence within the context of criminology and criminal justice. It begins by defining hearsay as evidence based on statements made by others, rather than direct personal knowledge, and highlights the importance of such evidence in criminal proceedings. The document then examines non-verbal behaviors, assertive and non-assertive statements, and the application of the hearsay rule, including exceptions. Key aspects covered include the evaluation of witness credibility through Rule 608, the confrontation clause, and the co-conspirator rule. The assignment further differentiates between assertive and non-assertive statements and discusses the impact of prior statements. The rationale behind the exclusion of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings is explained. The assignment concludes by referencing a relevant text on criminal evidence.

0
Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice

1
Hearsay is referred to evidence which is offered by witnesses who did not have
direct knowledge regarding the issue; instead, they give testimony based on what others
have said to them. For example, Tom testifies in Rick’s murder trial that Rick’s best friend
told him that Rick kills the victim. The benefit of hearsay is that it increases the accuracy of
the statements and evidence given in criminal proceedings. The non-verbal acts which
include exception to hearsay are facial expressions or gestures. An example of assertive
non-verbal behavior includes pointing at a picture to identify attacker. An example of non-
assertive non-verbal behavior includes putting on a sweater because it is cold. The prior
statements made by a witness in hearsay rule are considered as an exception to the hearsay
rule if such statements are inconsistent with the testimony of the declarant, consistent to
rebut undue influence or identification of the person after perceiving the person. In this
situation, the rule of hearsay did not apply because the credibility of the statement reduces
as the time pass by. To determine whether the evidence is considered as hearsay, following
questions can be asked. Is it a statement? Whether the party makes such statement in the
court? Is the statement is being offered for its truth? The principal methods used are
controlled by the judge who can allow the hearsay evidence if there is compelling reason to
do so. A witness rule 608 is used to evaluate witness credibility by determining his/her
character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witness. Secondly, the criminal records of
the witness are evaluated. Moreover, the court uses direct witnessing, expert witness
testimony and other options to analyze the testimony of witness. If the court allows non-
verbal hearsay evidence, then it interferes with these methods.
Both principles restrict the admission of the out of court statements in case of
criminal proceedings. For example, the confrontation clause guarantees that the criminal
defendant has the right to face the witness who is giving evidence against him. Similarly, out
of court statements are not allowed in hearsay statement due to which the defendant can
confront the witness. Assertive statements are referred to statements which are made for
the purpose other than hearsay. In these statements, the party stands up for oneself in a
way that it did not violate the basic rights of another person. Examples of assertive
statements include I have different opinion in this regard, or we both are right. Examples of
non-assertive include operative conduct and performative utterances. In case a person
engages in the conduct which is not meant to communicate, then it is not considered as

2
hearsay by the court since there is no attempt to be assertive. For example, telling a fact
without being confident enough to admit it in front of everyone. The rule of co-conspirator
is provided that any statement made by co-conspirator during furtherance of the conspiracy
is not considered as hearsay. For example, a conspiracy prosecution testifies against a police
officer for getting a bribe from the company while getting money from the company is not
admissible as per co-conspirator rule. There are three types of prior statements which
include (1) prior inconsistent statement which testifying under oath, (2) rebut an express or
implied charge of improper influence or (3) statements of prior identification after
perceiving the person. The main reason for not making hearsay a standard is that it leads to
confusion and unreliable evidence in criminal proceedings due to which innocent parties can
suffer loss.

3
References
Gardner, T. & Anderson, A. (2016). Criminal Evidence: Principles and cases (9th ed.). Boston,
Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.