As soon as someone, any potential witness, makes a statement from the witness stand any hearsay that they previously said becomes testimony as they’re offered an opportunity to say their piece in court and have either the defense or prosecution cross examine their statements. Brooke’s testimony isn’t a fact because she said what she believes. But alas it isn’t hearsay as whatever she claims in court becomes testimony
I appreciate the explanation Nacho but alas that is still confusing to me...
It's my understanding that it works like this... Person A tells person B something. Person B tells person C what person A said. Person C would then not be able to tell what was told to them by person B because it didn't come directly from person A.
It's myunderstanding, at least in courts where I'm from, that hearsay works like this... Person A tells Person B something and Person B tells Person C what Person A said. Person C would not be able to deliver testimony of what person A said because it was not said directly to Person C.
*sorry for the double post, had trouble posting*
Thanks. Sugarcane. That makes sense to me and was always my understanding of it. Nacho 's explanation seems to be explaining it from a slightly different perspective and I think that is where I am getting a bit confused.
It has nothing to do with hearsay in court becoming testimony. There are multiple legal exceptions to the hearsay rule. Admissions and statements against interest by the defendant are exceptions. Testimony that is not offered to prove the truth of the statement is another. So testimony that someone said XYZ and it was a lie can be an exception even it’s hearsat. There are many other exceptions to the hearsay rule.