In the courts of San Jose, California, hearsay evidence is not generally admissible in most cases. This is because hearsay consists of statements made by an individual while not under oath, which gives the court plenty of reason to doubt the veracity of their claims. However, there are certain situations in which the use of hearsay evidence is allowed.
When is hearsay evidence considered admissible?
In order for hearsay evidence to be admissible in court, a rule must be in place specifically allowing the use of it. Here are three situations in which hearsay evidence can be used in court:
Perhaps the most common situation in which hearsay evidence is admissible is when a witness gives a statement shortly after an event takes place. This is because the witness in this situation would likely not have been influenced by outside factors in the time between the event taking place and the statement being given.
Another situation in which hearsay evidence would be allowed in court is when there is a written record of a witness’s testimony concerning an event that they no longer recall that was made shortly after it has taken place. Although they no longer have any memory of the event in this scenario, there is still a record of the details they once knew that are relevant to the case, which itself is admissible in court.
Proof of routine activity
While we are on the subject of written records, yet another piece of hearsay evidence that would be considered admissible in court would be that which concerns an activity regularly carried out by a person relevant to the case for which a record exists. For example, if the person in question goes to the bank every Friday and a statement is given that they were seen at the bank on that day, then the statement would be considered admissible in a court setting because the bank would have a record of that person having been there on the day specified. A lawyer will likely be able to clarify if you’re ever uncertain whether hearsay is admissible.