HEARSAY - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

HEARSAYAuthored

The Law Mind • 1417 words

Definition

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The defining feature is not who made the statement or how it was delivered, but why it is being used: if the value of the statement depends on the credibility of someone who is not before the court and subject to cross-examination, it is hearsay. As a general rule, hearsay is inadmissible. The rule rests on the premise that reliability requires the opportunity to test a statement under oath, before the factfinder, with the opposing party able to cross-examine.

The modern formulation has three components: (1) a statement — an oral or written assertion, or conduct intended as an assertion; (2) made out of court — meaning outside the current proceeding; and (3) offered to prove the truth of what it asserts — not merely to show the statement was made, or its effect on the listener, or the declarant's state of mind.

Critically, "hearsay" is not synonymous with "unreliable" or "secondhand." A statement that is hearsay may still be admitted under one of the many recognized exceptions. Conversely, not all secondhand accounts are hearsay — it depends entirely on the purpose for which the statement is offered.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Information heard by one person about another that cannot be adequately substantiated; evidence based on the reports of others rather than personal knowledge, normally inadmissible because not made under oath.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Report; rumor; fame; common talk; something heard from another.

The ordinary meaning captures the intuition — knowledge acquired from what others have said — but misses the technical trigger. The legal rule does not exclude all secondhand knowledge. It excludes out-of-court statements only when they are offered to prove the truth of what was asserted. A statement offered for a different purpose (to show notice, to demonstrate a verbal act, to establish the effect on a listener) is not hearsay as a matter of law, regardless of how "secondhand" it feels. The common usage also omits the extensive exception structure: even true hearsay is admissible across dozens of recognized categories.

Common Confusion

HEARSAY VS. PRIOR STATEMENTS BY WITNESSES
A statement made by a person who later testifies at trial is not automatically non-hearsay simply because the declarant is present. Whether a witness's prior out-of-court statement is hearsay — and whether it can be used substantively versus only for impeachment — is a recurring technical problem in both historical and modern sources. Modern evidence codes often carve out specific categories of prior witness statements as non-hearsay by definition.

Core Elements

For a statement to be excluded as hearsay, three conditions must be met:
STATEMENT: An assertion — oral, written, or assertive conduct — made by a person. Non-assertive conduct and machine-generated output are generally not hearsay.
OUT OF COURT: The statement was made outside the proceeding in which it is offered, or is a prior statement from an earlier stage of the same proceeding not subject to the current cross-examination opportunity.
OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH: The proponent offers the statement to establish the fact it asserts. If offered for any other legitimate purpose — notice, verbal act, circumstantial evidence of state of mind — the hearsay rule is not triggered.

Why It Matters in Research

The hearsay rule is a structural feature of Anglo-American evidence law with no close parallel in civil law systems. Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus need to track three distinct layers of doctrinal development.

First, the historical sources define hearsay primarily in terms of the witness's personal knowledge — they ask whether the testifying witness knows the fact from his own observation or merely from what he was told. This formulation is accurate but incomplete by modern standards. It does not capture the "offered for the truth" refinement that is central to contemporary doctrine. When reading historical authorities, expect definitions that describe hearsay's weakness but do not articulate the purpose-of-offer analysis that distinguishes hearsay from non-hearsay uses of out-of-court statements.

Second, the exception structure is extensive and has expanded significantly over time. Historical sources acknowledge exceptions (dying declarations, ancient documents, business records in early forms) but the modern codified system — particularly under the Federal Rules of Evidence and parallel state codes — recognizes over two dozen enumerated exceptions plus a residual catch-all. Research into whether a particular statement was admissible at a given historical moment requires knowing which exceptions existed at that time.

Third, in criminal cases, hearsay doctrine intersects with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in ways that create an independent constitutional floor. After Crawford v. Washington (2004), admission of "testimonial" hearsay against a criminal defendant without prior opportunity for cross-examination violates the Confrontation Clause, regardless of whether a hearsay exception applies. This constitutional dimension is entirely absent from historical dictionary sources and requires separate analysis. See: The Confrontation Clause — Crawford and Testimonial Hearsay (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia).

Researchers should also be alert to double hearsay (hearsay within hearsay): a statement that contains a second out-of-court assertion embedded within it. Each layer must independently satisfy an exception. See: Hearsay Within Hearsay (Double Hearsay) — Rule 805 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia).

Historical Dictionary Support

The three shelf sources converge on the foundational formulation: hearsay is testimony by a witness relating not what he knows personally, but what he has heard from others. Black's (both editions) and Anderson's use nearly identical language, defining hearsay as evidence that "does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons." This captures the core reliability rationale — the problem is that the person whose assertion actually matters is not present to be tested.

Anderson's makes the most structurally useful observation, noting that in "the largest sense" hearsay is interchangeable with "non-original evidence" — a broader category label that some historical authorities preferred. Anderson's also flags the inadmissibility consequence directly: "generally inadmissible, because of the depreciation of value" when the asserting person cannot be examined.

Black's 2nd Edition adds case authority to the definition, citing Hopt v. Utah, a United States Supreme Court decision, as well as Indiana and Michigan authorities — evidence that by the late nineteenth century the definition was treated as settled doctrine rather than contested principle.

What the historical sources do not address: the purpose-of-offer distinction (the modern insight that the same statement may be hearsay or non-hearsay depending on why it is introduced); the categorical exception structure in its modern form; and the constitutional overlay entirely. Researchers relying solely on these definitions will have an accurate starting point for pre-twentieth-century materials but will need modern evidence codes and constitutional doctrine to complete any contemporary analysis.

Jurisdictional Note

The Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801–807) govern federal courts and have been adopted in substantially similar form by most U.S. states. Some states retain common-law hearsay frameworks or have modified the exception structure. In criminal cases, the Confrontation Clause analysis applies in all U.S. jurisdictions but does not apply in civil proceedings. International and civil law systems generally do not recognize a hearsay exclusionary rule as such.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Hearsay Within Hearsay (Double Hearsay) — Rule 805 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
Hearsay Exceptions in Criminal Cases (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
The Confrontation Clause — Crawford and Testimonial Hearsay (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)

HEARSAYmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A term applied to that spe- cies of testimony given by a witness who re- lates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others. Hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The very nat ure of the evidence shows its weakness, and it is admitted only in specified cases from necessity. Code Ga. 1882, § 3770; 1 Phil. Ev. 185. Hearsay evidence is second-hand evi- dence, as distinguished from original evi- dence; it is the repetition at second-hand of what would be original evidence if given by the person who originally made the state- ment.

HEARSAYmain

Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890

What is heard as rumored; testimony not a matter of personal knowledge with the witness. That kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit to be given to the witness himself, but rests also, in part, on the veracity and competency of some other person.3 In the largest sense, interchangeable with nonoriginal evidence. This is generally inadmissible, because of the depreciation of truth from passage through fallible media; because of non-discrimination by juries between primary and secondary evidence; and because it is irresponsible in its first exhibition.4 Because it wants the sanction of an oath, and affords no opportunity for cross-examination, is excluded.5 Supposes that better testimony may be had; is intrinsically too weak to satisfy the mind; under its color fraud might be practiced. Admissible in the following cases: 1. As to a witness-what was said in a former trial by a person now dead, out of the jurisdiction, subsequently incompetent, insane, or sick.7 2. As to depositions in perpetuam. But the testimony must be ephemeral; taken conformably to the rules of evidence; be deposited in court; and the cause be not delayed. 3. As to matters of general interest, and ancient possession. But the witnesses must be disinterested. Includes declarations of deceased persons as to boundaries 9 Ancient documents, in proper custody, prove ancient possessions.10 Akerly v. Vilas, 24 Wis. 171 (1869), Paine, J.; Jones v. Foster, 61 id. 29 (1884); Galpin v. Critchlow, 112 Mass. 343 (1873). 2 [3 Bl. Com. 453. 31 Greenl. Ev. § 99: [1 Phill. Ev. 1C9. 41 Whart. Ev. §§ 170-75, cases 51 Greenl. Ev. §§ 163, 98, 124. Mima Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cranch, 295 (1813), Marshall, C. J.; Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 581 (1884); 1 Wheat. 8; 8 Wall. 409. 1 Whart. Ev. §§ 177-80, cases. 81 Whart. Ev. §§ 181-84, cases. See Clement v. Packer, 125 U. S. 321 (1888), cases. 101 Whart. Ev. §§ 185-200, cases; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 127-40. 4. As to pedigree and relationship: birth, marriage, and death. Common family tradition is receivable; also, statements of deceased relatives made before a dispute arose; also, family records, epitaphs, armorial bearings, and the like. See PEDIGREE. 5. As to declarations against interest by deceased persons. This means against pecuniary or proprietary interest; not as to incidental matters, and although better evidence may be had. But must be brought home to an imputed declarant.2 6. As to business entries. By a deceased or absent partner or clerk, and made in the regular course of business, admitted. So of notes by surveyor, counsel, bank messenger, notaries, and others. But the entry must have been made contemporaneously with the transaction, confined to the matter it was the person's duty to record, and, in its nature, original See further ENTRY, II, 1. 7. As to general reputation when material. See CHARACTER; REPUTATION. 8. To refresh memory, as to extrinsic incidents of testimony; as, dates, places, etc. See REFRESH. 9. As to res gestæ. Includes declarations coincident with business acts, and torts; not, if the acts are in themselves inadmissible, or there exists opportunity for concoction. See RES, Gestæ. 10. As to declarations concerning a party's own health and state of mind. These chiefly regard state. ments as to injuries and motives." See further DECLARATION, 2; EVIDENCE; HISTORIES.

HEARSAYmain

Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910

A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others. Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 4 Sup. Ct. 202. 28 L. Ed. 262; Morell v. Morell, 157 Ind. 179, 60 N. E. 1092; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 570; People v. Kraft, 91 Hun, 474, 36 N. Y. Supp. 10384. Hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness, and it is admitted only in specified cases from necessity. Code Ga. 1882, § 3770; 1 Phil. Ev. 185. Hearsay evidence is second-hand evidence, as distinguished from original evidence; it is the repetition at second-hand of what would be original evidence if given ty the person who originally made the statement.

HEARSAYn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

Report; rumor; fame; common talk; something heard from another. Much of the obloquy that has so long rested on the memory of our great national poet originated in frivolous hearsays of his life and conversation. Prof. Wilson. Hearsay evidence (Law), that species of testimony which consists in a a narration by one person of matters told him by another. It is, with a few exceptions, inadmissible as testimony. Abbott.

hearsaynoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

Information that was heard by one person about another that cannot be adequately substantiated. | Evidence based on the reports of others, which is normally inadmissible because it was not made under oath, rather than on personal knowledge. | An out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted (or the in-court testimony which recites such a statement), which is normally inadmissible (because it is not subject to cross-examination) unless it falls under one of a number of exceptions.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In