Dont Take The Hearsay Rule Personally

I have clients that do this.

They come into the office, relate a story and declare a conclusion. I lean back in my chair, review my notes and I tell them about 2/3rds of it is inadmissible as evidence. This is not well taken, like I am telling them they are unable to relate what they heard accurately. Well I’m not, but the hearsay rule is.

The rule reads something like this:

No statement, made out of court, shall be admitted into evidence for the truth of the matter asserted.

What?

Lets break it down: HEAR. You hear someone something,  assume it is true, then turn and then SAY it to someone else like a Judge and ask him to assume it is true too.

Example: “John told me the light was green when I went through the intersection”. Using this statement to prove the color of the light is hearsay. My clients will then  come to Johns defense, as if he is being accused of lying, which really confuses the issue.

It’s so much better if you actually saw the light. “I saw the light was green when I went through the intersection”. Not hearsay.

It’s just remarkable how often I interview a witness or a client and find most of what they have to say is based not on their own first hand knowledge, what they actually saw but instead a mass of hearsay, peppered with preexisting judgments about the actors involved and a personal agenda.

Hearsay. It’s an old rule, but a good rule. Please, don’t take it personally.

Advertisements

Bar Stool Advice

Regularly we have people come in who made legal decisions for themselves based on what they heard at work, or at church, or sitting on a bar stool. It doesn’t seem to matter at all that the co-worker, minister or drinking buddy has never practiced law and in all likelihood lacks a license to do so. Usually things are a lot worse after following the layman’s advice.

The ultimate bar stool of course is the internet. Apparently because this medium is a source of reliable information some of the time the unreliable publisher gains the same credibility.

Even when credible, following up on the information can be dangerous. I am sure there are instructions on how to fly an airplane on the internet. Getting a plane, taking off and navigating to a safe landing is something else entirely.

Worse, I was seeing my doctor this week and I asked him how often people came to see him having first self diagnosed on the internet. “Daily” he said.

Tomorrow I see my dentist and I will ask him the same question. Can you imagine, “Do It Yourself Dentistry”? All I can recommend ( and this is not legal advice) is considerable time on the bar stool before attempting the same at home. Be sure to have the cab that brought you there wait because you are going to need to go to the ER after a few minutes.

The Deed is Not Quick

I often get requests, sometimes a demand, for a “quick claim deed”. Rather like “Quick! Sign this Deed!”

Transferring real estate requires a writing called a “Deed” legally describing the property which is signed before a notary. To transfer all your interest without making a warranty about the condition of the title one signs a “Quit Claim Deed”. If you promise you really own the property and there are no undisclosed problems with the title, one signs a “Warranty Deed”.

There is usually not a rush to do so, and the term “Quick Claim” is not found in Blacks Law Dictionary.

Instead there is no such thing except in the lexicon of folk law and non-lawyers in a hurry.

Evidence : As Seen on TV

There are no rules of evidence on television but that is where most folks learn to practice law.

On television lawyers can do anything, present anything and say anything and the judge always follows the script. The problem of evidence in real courtrooms is that this is not television and what may be admissible in fiction may not be admissible in a real court.

If you think about it Rules of Evidence are important so the fate of people and their property are not just a question of emotion or prejudice or the right scriptwriter, and instead their fate is based on what is reliable, or authentic, or can withstand a good questioning.

People come to me with their opinions and declare it to be evidence. Bits of paper that may support their position become facts set in stone when handled by them, but go up like so much smoke when marked by the clerk, offered as evidence then objected to on any number of basis; hearsay, authentication, the best evidence rule, the list goes on.

Then they get mad. Well fine, be mad, but what you see on TV is not evidence.