Should hearsay be acceptable evidence in a court of law?

[daveymark]

article about petersen's arrest
Text

hearsay law article
Text

Cliffs:

Guy's third wife dies, ruled accidental. Guy's 4th wife goes missing, guy is a suspect. 3rd wife's remains are exhumed, and new law is passed allowing hearsay from murdered victims. 3rd wife told her sister "If I ever die, it's because Drew killed me"


I don't know about this... what would be a legitimate reason for allowing this? that's a pretty big nudge of the law. But they do use it in other states apparently.

according to wiki:

One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions.

maybe this is one of them.

 

[Andrew1990]

I heard from a buddy of mine that Daveymark killed Drew's 3rd wife.

Now me saying that doesnt make it true.

 

[sandorski]

If it's allowed under certain circumstances already, this seems an appropriate situation. Of course Conviction on that alone should not be allowed, but given 2 Wives of 1 guy meet(potentially) similar fates is a little too much to be mere coincidence.

 

[piasabird]

Heresay is allowed all the time.

The thing is this is the Presses favorite technique. According to unnamed sources . . . Whenever the press uses this technique they should get a fine.

 

[cubby1223]

He is a murdering scumbag that deserves to be locked up. In this instance, I fully agree the ends justify the means.

This is how it'll work, they'll go to court, jury will convict him on the evidence, then an appellate court will decide if hearsay is truly allowable in this type of situation.

We're a very long way off before determining if hearsay is acceptable, so let's watch this unfold.

 

[SickBeast]

People can testify via video uplink.

If they allow hearsay like this it is an erosion on our freedom as citizens.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
People can testify via video uplink.

Can they testify via John Edward, that is the question

 

[Deleted member 4644]

ha ha.. federal rules of evidence.. I hate them.

 

[tk149]

From what I remember, the reason for barring hearsay evidence from trial is because juries may possibly grant that evidence greater weight than they should. In my opinion, this is rather paternalistic, but given the intelligence of the average American, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm kind of torn on this one.

 

[fskimospy]

Rather than allowing hearsay I would prefer Congress to pass the "Throw Drew Peterson in Fucking Jail Act of 2009". That guy is a menace.

 

[MovingTarget]

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, iirc, is there for a reason. Heresay evidence simply isn't reliable enough to allow into court, as it would easily contaminate a jury. However, rule 803, iirc, grants exception to the hearsay rule under certain conditions which allow hearsay to be much more reliable as evidence.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Rather than allowing hearsay I would prefer Congress to pass the "Throw Drew Peterson in Fucking Jail Act of 2009". That guy is a menace.

Bills of Attainer FTL. This guy is a total douchebag though, and I wouldn't be opposed to watching him get tarred and feathered on C-SPAN, live.