[../IndexIncludes.htm]

 

HANDOUT #7: THE DEFINITION OF HEARSAY (Part 2)

13. For our purposes, the opinion in U.S. v. Zenni (Casebook, p. 106) is useful primarily for its discussion of the common law's definition of hearsay, which was derived in large part from the result in Wright v. Tatham (see p. 107). Please review the Zenni court's analysis of the Wright case carefully and then answer the following questions:

a. Assume that the evidence in Wright v. Tatham was a letter from a Mr. Marsden that advised the soon-to-be testator to sell a piece of real estate and purchase stock in a new buggy company. Would that evidence be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [Note that the court in Wright itself held that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay under the common law.]

b. In Acme Shipping Co. v. Nadir Insurance Co., the primary issue is whether the Plaintiff's ship, the Gigantic, was seaworthy when it sailed on a voyage during which it sank. On this issue, the plaintiff wishes to introduce evidence that the captain of the Gigantic inspected the ship the day before it sailed and then took his wife and two small children with him on the ill-fated voyage. Is this evidence hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [NOTE: The evidence would be hearsay under the common-law rule in Wright.]

c. On the issue of whether it was raining at a particular time, is evidence that a person put up his umbrella at that time hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [NOTE: The evidence would be hearsay under the common law rule in Wright.]

d. In light of your answers to Questions 13(a)-(c), how would you formulate a definition of common law hearsay? [NOTE: Reviewing the Tribe excerpt, Casebook pp. 92-94, may be helpful.]

e. Was the evidence in Zenni hearsay (i) under FRE 801(a)-(c); (ii) under the common law rule in Wright?

14. What is an example of "assertive conduct" (or in the terms of FRE 801(a)(2), "nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion")?

15. In terms of the four "hearsay dangers," is the federal rule or the common law rule the better one? (See the second paragraph of the Advisory Committee Note to FRE 801(a), West FRE pamphlet at p. 132.)

16. In the Knapp case (Casebook p. 111), was the evidence that Crowninshield committed suicide hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

17. Suppose that in Question 13(b), above, the fact to be proven is that the sea captain believed the ship was seaworthy.

a. Now is evidence that the sea captain got on the ship with his family hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

b. Is evidence that the captain said "I believe this ship is seaworthy" hearsay under FRE 801 (a)-(c)?

c. Is evidence that the captain said "This ship is seaworthy" hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

18. In Philbin v. Regis Enterprises, the plaintiff claims that a television quiz show operated by the defendant was fixed. To prove that one of the contestants on the show, Arnold, knew the answers to questions before they were asked, the plaintiff to introduce the following evidence: (A) During one of the shows, Arnold whispered to his partner, "I know that the next answer will be `Bobby Avila'"; and (B) the next question was, "Who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians?" Is this evidence admissible over a hearsay objection? [NOTE: In answering this question, please consider the following]:

a. I'm sure you already knew who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians, but in case not: It was Bobby Avila.

b. What really persuades you that Arnold knew the answer to the next question: Just the fact that Arnold said he knew the answer, or the fact that he turned out to be right?

c. Suppose (A) that Arnold did not say, "I know that the next answer will be 'Bobby Avila,'" but that instead he just muttered "Bobby Avila, Bobby Avila" over and over -- and (B) that the next question was "Who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians?"

i. In this situation, did Arnold make any "statement" under FRE 801(a)?

ii. In terms of the hearsay rule, should this situation be different from the one in which Arnold did say, "I know that the next answer will be 'Bobby Avila'"?

19. In State v. Bridges, the Defendant is charged with sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl, Sharon. There is no question that Sharon was assaulted; the only issue is the identity of the perpetrator. The defendant was arrested at his place of residence, which is a studio apartment with purple wallpaper, a pink satin couch, a table made out of crushed Budweiser cans, and a picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall. At trial, the prosecution wishes to call Sharon's mother to testify that on the day of the assault, Sharon told her, "I was in a one-room apartment with purple wallpaper, a pink couch, a table made out of crushed Budweiser cans, and a picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall." Should the Court sustain the defendant's hearsay objection?

20. Would the evidence at issue in Silver v. N.Y. Central RR (Casebook, p. 115) be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

21. Was Old Boston's out-of-court conduct in Buck v. State (Casebook, p. 123) "assertive" under FRE 801(a)? Would it be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

22. Do the Parrot and Gorilla excerpts (Casebook, pp. 128 and 129) suggest that some animals can make out-of-court "statements" that should be treated as hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matters they "assert?"

23. With regard to City of Webster Groves v. Quick (Casebook, p. 130):

a. What was the out-of-court statement that the defendant claimed had been made?

b. Under the defendant's theory, who (or what) was the statement's "declarant"?

c. Would the evidence at issue in Quick be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

24. In Altman v. Berch [yes, they're back], Rose testifies for Altman that Berch drove through a red light and ran into Altman's car. On cross-examination, Berch asks Rose, "Isn't it a fact that you told my investigator that it was Altman who drove through the red light?" Altman objects to this question on the ground that it calls for hearsay. Under FRE 801(a)-(c), should the court sustain Altman's objection?

25. NOTE: The answers to the Morgan Exam (Casebook, p. 132) start on the next page. You should try to answer Morgan's questions -- under FRE 801(a)-(c) only -- before you look at my answers. You can skip questions 18 and 19 (since I don't understand them).

ANSWERS TO MORGAN EXAM (p. 132)

C/L  FRE COMMENTS
1. No No Indep. legal significance
2. [No]  [No] The bracketed answers are what most courts would say. In my view, the answers should be "Yes"
3. No No  Indep. legal significance
4. No No Note: Subramaniam
5. No No Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
6. Hearsay Hearsay
7. Hearsay Hearsay
8. No No Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show X's state of mind.
9. Hearsay Hearsay
10. No No Indep. legal significance
11. Hearsay  Hearsay
14. No No  See 5.
15. No No See 8
16. No No See 8
17. No No See 8
18. ? ? Forget this one
19. ? ? Forget this one
20. No No Question would be better if "existence" were substituted for "terms."
21. Hearsay Hearsay
22. Hearsay No Probably non-assertive conduct
23, Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
24. Hearsay Hearsay FRE 801 (a) (2)
25. Hearsay Hearsay Assuming that X's confinement was pursuant to a finding of insanity by an insanity commission.
26. Hearsay Hearsay
27. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
28. No No Indep. legal significance
29. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
30. No No Indep. legal significance
31. Hearsay Hearsay
32. No No It is not necessary to ask the jury to infer that testator really believed X was guilty of forgery.
33. No No
34. No No
35. No No Indep. legal significance
36. Hearsay Hearsay
37. Hearsay Hearsay
38. Hearsay Hearsay
39. No No See 5.
40. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
44. Hearsay Hearsay
48. Hearsay Hearsay
50. No No With the other testimony, not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
51. Hearsay Hearsay [FRE 801(d)(2) would define the evidence as not hearsay]
52. Hearsay No Maybe inadmissible as a matter of constitutional law
53. Hearsay Hearsay Actually, double hearsay
54. Hearsay Hearsay
55. No No
56. No No Indep. legal significance
57. Hearsay [No] Probably non-assertive conduct, but this one is arguable
58. Hearsay Hearsay
59. Hearsay Hearsay
60. No No Webster Groves v. Quick
61. No No Like the Bobby Avila hypo
62. No No Indep. legal significance
63. No No
64. No No Murdock
65. No No Buck
66. Hearsay No Zenni
67. No No Non-assertive conduct offered only to show P's state of mind.
68. No No
69. No No Assertive conduct, but in court
70. Hearsay Hearsay C/L: double hearsay.
FRE: both levels covered by 801(d)(2).
71. No No
72. Hearsay Hearsay (Possibly indep. legal significance, depending on the insurance K).
73. No No
74. Hearsay Hearsay
75. Hearsay Hearsay

 

[../BottomIncludes.htm]

 

HANDOUT #7: THE DEFINITION OF HEARSAY (Part 2)

13. For our purposes, the opinion in U.S. v. Zenni (Casebook, p. 106) is useful primarily for its discussion of the common law's definition of hearsay, which was derived in large part from the result in Wright v. Tatham (see p. 107). Please review the Zenni court's analysis of the Wright case carefully and then answer the following questions:

a. Assume that the evidence in Wright v. Tatham was a letter from a Mr. Marsden that advised the soon-to-be testator to sell a piece of real estate and purchase stock in a new buggy company. Would that evidence be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [Note that the court in Wright itself held that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay under the common law.]

b. In Acme Shipping Co. v. Nadir Insurance Co., the primary issue is whether the Plaintiff's ship, the Gigantic, was seaworthy when it sailed on a voyage during which it sank. On this issue, the plaintiff wishes to introduce evidence that the captain of the Gigantic inspected the ship the day before it sailed and then took his wife and two small children with him on the ill-fated voyage. Is this evidence hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [NOTE: The evidence would be hearsay under the common-law rule in Wright.]

c. On the issue of whether it was raining at a particular time, is evidence that a person put up his umbrella at that time hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [NOTE: The evidence would be hearsay under the common law rule in Wright.]

d. In light of your answers to Questions 13(a)-(c), how would you formulate a definition of common law hearsay? [NOTE: Reviewing the Tribe excerpt, Casebook pp. 92-94, may be helpful.]

e. Was the evidence in Zenni hearsay (i) under FRE 801(a)-(c); (ii) under the common law rule in Wright?

14. What is an example of "assertive conduct" (or in the terms of FRE 801(a)(2), "nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion")?

15. In terms of the four "hearsay dangers," is the federal rule or the common law rule the better one? (See the second paragraph of the Advisory Committee Note to FRE 801(a), West FRE pamphlet at p. 132.)

16. In the Knapp case (Casebook p. 111), was the evidence that Crowninshield committed suicide hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

17. Suppose that in Question 13(b), above, the fact to be proven is that the sea captain believed the ship was seaworthy.

a. Now is evidence that the sea captain got on the ship with his family hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

b. Is evidence that the captain said "I believe this ship is seaworthy" hearsay under FRE 801 (a)-(c)?

c. Is evidence that the captain said "This ship is seaworthy" hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

18. In Philbin v. Regis Enterprises, the plaintiff claims that a television quiz show operated by the defendant was fixed. To prove that one of the contestants on the show, Arnold, knew the answers to questions before they were asked, the plaintiff to introduce the following evidence: (A) During one of the shows, Arnold whispered to his partner, "I know that the next answer will be `Bobby Avila'"; and (B) the next question was, "Who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians?" Is this evidence admissible over a hearsay objection? [NOTE: In answering this question, please consider the following]:

a. I'm sure you already knew who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians, but in case not: It was Bobby Avila.

b. What really persuades you that Arnold knew the answer to the next question: Just the fact that Arnold said he knew the answer, or the fact that he turned out to be right?

c. Suppose (A) that Arnold did not say, "I know that the next answer will be 'Bobby Avila,'" but that instead he just muttered "Bobby Avila, Bobby Avila" over and over -- and (B) that the next question was "Who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians?"

i. In this situation, did Arnold make any "statement" under FRE 801(a)?

ii. In terms of the hearsay rule, should this situation be different from the one in which Arnold did say, "I know that the next answer will be 'Bobby Avila'"?

19. In State v. Bridges, the Defendant is charged with sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl, Sharon. There is no question that Sharon was assaulted; the only issue is the identity of the perpetrator. The defendant was arrested at his place of residence, which is a studio apartment with purple wallpaper, a pink satin couch, a table made out of crushed Budweiser cans, and a picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall. At trial, the prosecution wishes to call Sharon's mother to testify that on the day of the assault, Sharon told her, "I was in a one-room apartment with purple wallpaper, a pink couch, a table made out of crushed Budweiser cans, and a picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall." Should the Court sustain the defendant's hearsay objection?

20. Would the evidence at issue in Silver v. N.Y. Central RR (Casebook, p. 115) be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

21. Was Old Boston's out-of-court conduct in Buck v. State (Casebook, p. 123) "assertive" under FRE 801(a)? Would it be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

22. Do the Parrot and Gorilla excerpts (Casebook, pp. 128 and 129) suggest that some animals can make out-of-court "statements" that should be treated as hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matters they "assert?"

23. With regard to City of Webster Groves v. Quick (Casebook, p. 130):

a. What was the out-of-court statement that the defendant claimed had been made?

b. Under the defendant's theory, who (or what) was the statement's "declarant"?

c. Would the evidence at issue in Quick be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

24. In Altman v. Berch [yes, they're back], Rose testifies for Altman that Berch drove through a red light and ran into Altman's car. On cross-examination, Berch asks Rose, "Isn't it a fact that you told my investigator that it was Altman who drove through the red light?" Altman objects to this question on the ground that it calls for hearsay. Under FRE 801(a)-(c), should the court sustain Altman's objection?

25. NOTE: The answers to the Morgan Exam (Casebook, p. 132) start on the next page. You should try to answer Morgan's questions -- under FRE 801(a)-(c) only -- before you look at my answers. You can skip questions 18 and 19 (since I don't understand them).

ANSWERS TO MORGAN EXAM (p. 132)

C/L  FRE COMMENTS
1. No No Indep. legal significance
2. [No]  [No] The bracketed answers are what most courts would say. In my view, the answers should be "Yes"
3. No No  Indep. legal significance
4. No No Note: Subramaniam
5. No No Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
6. Hearsay Hearsay
7. Hearsay Hearsay
8. No No Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show X's state of mind.
9. Hearsay Hearsay
10. No No Indep. legal significance
11. Hearsay  Hearsay
14. No No  See 5.
15. No No See 8
16. No No See 8
17. No No See 8
18. ? ? Forget this one
19. ? ? Forget this one
20. No No Question would be better if "existence" were substituted for "terms."
21. Hearsay Hearsay
22. Hearsay No Probably non-assertive conduct
23, Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
24. Hearsay Hearsay FRE 801 (a) (2)
25. Hearsay Hearsay Assuming that X's confinement was pursuant to a finding of insanity by an insanity commission.
26. Hearsay Hearsay
27. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
28. No No Indep. legal significance
29. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
30. No No Indep. legal significance
31. Hearsay Hearsay
32. No No It is not necessary to ask the jury to infer that testator really believed X was guilty of forgery.
33. No No
34. No No
35. No No Indep. legal significance
36. Hearsay Hearsay
37. Hearsay Hearsay
38. Hearsay Hearsay
39. No No See 5.
40. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
44. Hearsay Hearsay
48. Hearsay Hearsay
50. No No With the other testimony, not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
51. Hearsay Hearsay [FRE 801(d)(2) would define the evidence as not hearsay]
52. Hearsay No Maybe inadmissible as a matter of constitutional law
53. Hearsay Hearsay Actually, double hearsay
54. Hearsay Hearsay
55. No No
56. No No Indep. legal significance
57. Hearsay [No] Probably non-assertive conduct, but this one is arguable
58. Hearsay Hearsay
59. Hearsay Hearsay
60. No No Webster Groves v. Quick
61. No No Like the Bobby Avila hypo
62. No No Indep. legal significance
63. No No
64. No No Murdock
65. No No Buck
66. Hearsay No Zenni
67. No No Non-assertive conduct offered only to show P's state of mind.
68. No No
69. No No Assertive conduct, but in court
70. Hearsay Hearsay C/L: double hearsay.
FRE: both levels covered by 801(d)(2).
71. No No
72. Hearsay Hearsay (Possibly indep. legal significance, depending on the insurance K).
73. No No
74. Hearsay Hearsay
75. Hearsay Hearsay

 

[../IndexIncludes.htm]

 

HANDOUT #7: THE DEFINITION OF HEARSAY (Part 2)

13. For our purposes, the opinion in U.S. v. Zenni (Casebook, p. 106) is useful primarily for its discussion of the common law's definition of hearsay, which was derived in large part from the result in Wright v. Tatham (see p. 107). Please review the Zenni court's analysis of the Wright case carefully and then answer the following questions:

a. Assume that the evidence in Wright v. Tatham was a letter from a Mr. Marsden that advised the soon-to-be testator to sell a piece of real estate and purchase stock in a new buggy company. Would that evidence be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [Note that the court in Wright itself held that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay under the common law.]

b. In Acme Shipping Co. v. Nadir Insurance Co., the primary issue is whether the Plaintiff's ship, the Gigantic, was seaworthy when it sailed on a voyage during which it sank. On this issue, the plaintiff wishes to introduce evidence that the captain of the Gigantic inspected the ship the day before it sailed and then took his wife and two small children with him on the ill-fated voyage. Is this evidence hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [NOTE: The evidence would be hearsay under the common-law rule in Wright.]

c. On the issue of whether it was raining at a particular time, is evidence that a person put up his umbrella at that time hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)? [NOTE: The evidence would be hearsay under the common law rule in Wright.]

d. In light of your answers to Questions 13(a)-(c), how would you formulate a definition of common law hearsay? [NOTE: Reviewing the Tribe excerpt, Casebook pp. 92-94, may be helpful.]

e. Was the evidence in Zenni hearsay (i) under FRE 801(a)-(c); (ii) under the common law rule in Wright?

14. What is an example of "assertive conduct" (or in the terms of FRE 801(a)(2), "nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion")?

15. In terms of the four "hearsay dangers," is the federal rule or the common law rule the better one? (See the second paragraph of the Advisory Committee Note to FRE 801(a), West FRE pamphlet at p. 132.)

16. In the Knapp case (Casebook p. 111), was the evidence that Crowninshield committed suicide hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

17. Suppose that in Question 13(b), above, the fact to be proven is that the sea captain believed the ship was seaworthy.

a. Now is evidence that the sea captain got on the ship with his family hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

b. Is evidence that the captain said "I believe this ship is seaworthy" hearsay under FRE 801 (a)-(c)?

c. Is evidence that the captain said "This ship is seaworthy" hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

18. In Philbin v. Regis Enterprises, the plaintiff claims that a television quiz show operated by the defendant was fixed. To prove that one of the contestants on the show, Arnold, knew the answers to questions before they were asked, the plaintiff to introduce the following evidence: (A) During one of the shows, Arnold whispered to his partner, "I know that the next answer will be `Bobby Avila'"; and (B) the next question was, "Who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians?" Is this evidence admissible over a hearsay objection? [NOTE: In answering this question, please consider the following]:

a. I'm sure you already knew who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians, but in case not: It was Bobby Avila.

b. What really persuades you that Arnold knew the answer to the next question: Just the fact that Arnold said he knew the answer, or the fact that he turned out to be right?

c. Suppose (A) that Arnold did not say, "I know that the next answer will be 'Bobby Avila,'" but that instead he just muttered "Bobby Avila, Bobby Avila" over and over -- and (B) that the next question was "Who played second base for the 1954 Cleveland Indians?"

i. In this situation, did Arnold make any "statement" under FRE 801(a)?

ii. In terms of the hearsay rule, should this situation be different from the one in which Arnold did say, "I know that the next answer will be 'Bobby Avila'"?

19. In State v. Bridges, the Defendant is charged with sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl, Sharon. There is no question that Sharon was assaulted; the only issue is the identity of the perpetrator. The defendant was arrested at his place of residence, which is a studio apartment with purple wallpaper, a pink satin couch, a table made out of crushed Budweiser cans, and a picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall. At trial, the prosecution wishes to call Sharon's mother to testify that on the day of the assault, Sharon told her, "I was in a one-room apartment with purple wallpaper, a pink couch, a table made out of crushed Budweiser cans, and a picture of Ronald McDonald on the wall." Should the Court sustain the defendant's hearsay objection?

20. Would the evidence at issue in Silver v. N.Y. Central RR (Casebook, p. 115) be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

21. Was Old Boston's out-of-court conduct in Buck v. State (Casebook, p. 123) "assertive" under FRE 801(a)? Would it be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

22. Do the Parrot and Gorilla excerpts (Casebook, pp. 128 and 129) suggest that some animals can make out-of-court "statements" that should be treated as hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matters they "assert?"

23. With regard to City of Webster Groves v. Quick (Casebook, p. 130):

a. What was the out-of-court statement that the defendant claimed had been made?

b. Under the defendant's theory, who (or what) was the statement's "declarant"?

c. Would the evidence at issue in Quick be hearsay under FRE 801(a)-(c)?

24. In Altman v. Berch [yes, they're back], Rose testifies for Altman that Berch drove through a red light and ran into Altman's car. On cross-examination, Berch asks Rose, "Isn't it a fact that you told my investigator that it was Altman who drove through the red light?" Altman objects to this question on the ground that it calls for hearsay. Under FRE 801(a)-(c), should the court sustain Altman's objection?

25. NOTE: The answers to the Morgan Exam (Casebook, p. 132) start on the next page. You should try to answer Morgan's questions -- under FRE 801(a)-(c) only -- before you look at my answers. You can skip questions 18 and 19 (since I don't understand them).

ANSWERS TO MORGAN EXAM (p. 132)

C/L  FRE COMMENTS
1. No No Indep. legal significance
2. [No]  [No] The bracketed answers are what most courts would say. In my view, the answers should be "Yes"
3. No No  Indep. legal significance
4. No No Note: Subramaniam
5. No No Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
6. Hearsay Hearsay
7. Hearsay Hearsay
8. No No Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show X's state of mind.
9. Hearsay Hearsay
10. No No Indep. legal significance
11. Hearsay  Hearsay
14. No No  See 5.
15. No No See 8
16. No No See 8
17. No No See 8
18. ? ? Forget this one
19. ? ? Forget this one
20. No No Question would be better if "existence" were substituted for "terms."
21. Hearsay Hearsay
22. Hearsay No Probably non-assertive conduct
23, Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
24. Hearsay Hearsay FRE 801 (a) (2)
25. Hearsay Hearsay Assuming that X's confinement was pursuant to a finding of insanity by an insanity commission.
26. Hearsay Hearsay
27. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
28. No No Indep. legal significance
29. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
30. No No Indep. legal significance
31. Hearsay Hearsay
32. No No It is not necessary to ask the jury to infer that testator really believed X was guilty of forgery.
33. No No
34. No No
35. No No Indep. legal significance
36. Hearsay Hearsay
37. Hearsay Hearsay
38. Hearsay Hearsay
39. No No See 5.
40. Hearsay No Non-assertive conduct
44. Hearsay Hearsay
48. Hearsay Hearsay
50. No No With the other testimony, not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
51. Hearsay Hearsay [FRE 801(d)(2) would define the evidence as not hearsay]
52. Hearsay No Maybe inadmissible as a matter of constitutional law
53. Hearsay Hearsay Actually, double hearsay
54. Hearsay Hearsay
55. No No
56. No No Indep. legal significance
57. Hearsay [No] Probably non-assertive conduct, but this one is arguable
58. Hearsay Hearsay
59. Hearsay Hearsay
60. No No Webster Groves v. Quick
61. No No Like the Bobby Avila hypo
62. No No Indep. legal significance
63. No No
64. No No Murdock
65. No No Buck
66. Hearsay No Zenni
67. No No Non-assertive conduct offered only to show P's state of mind.
68. No No
69. No No Assertive conduct, but in court
70. Hearsay Hearsay C/L: double hearsay.
FRE: both levels covered by 801(d)(2).
71. No No
72. Hearsay Hearsay (Possibly indep. legal significance, depending on the insurance K).
73. No No
74. Hearsay Hearsay
75. Hearsay Hearsay

 

[../BottomIncludes.htm]