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.
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.