upandvanished

Open full view…

Bo Dukes trial - wasn't Brooke Sherdian's testimony hearsay?

shantelbett
Fri, 17 May 2019 16:04:33 GMT

Brooke's entire testimony was her repeating what she heard (a story Bo told her)...isn't the considered hearsay? Isn't hearsay inadmissible? Why wasn't the other lawyer objecting? How do you convict someone without "real" evidence. How do we know that Bo wasn't the one who killed Tara and Ryan helped him take care of the body? Is the reason they rushed Bo to trial first was because they wanted to get his story out there first so that if he was convicted it would be for accessory after the fact instead of the actual murder?

realnachosnow
Sat, 18 May 2019 00:14:25 GMT

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

lexala
Sat, 18 May 2019 00:46:42 GMT

I appreciate the explanation Nacho but alas that is still confusing to me...

sugacane18
Sat, 18 May 2019 01:13:33 GMT

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.

sugacane18
Sat, 18 May 2019 01:13:33 GMT

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.

sugacane18
Sat, 18 May 2019 05:19:57 GMT

*sorry for the double post, had trouble posting*

lexala
Sun, 19 May 2019 17:01:51 GMT

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.

vcallo
Mon, 20 May 2019 11:35:29 GMT

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.