Hearsay evidence is not no evidence. It can be admissible in court under certain circumstances, but it is generally considered less reliable than direct evidence.
Here's why:
- Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This means that the person testifying is not the original source of the information, but rather someone who heard it from another person.
- The original source of the information is not under oath and cannot be cross-examined. This makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the statement.
However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as:
- Statements against interest: Statements that harm the speaker's own interests are more likely to be true.
- Dying declarations: Statements made by a person who believes they are about to die are considered reliable.
- Excited utterances: Statements made while under the stress of an event are considered reliable.
Examples:
- Hearsay: A witness testifies that they heard someone say, "John robbed the bank." This is hearsay because the witness is not the person who saw the robbery.
- Not hearsay: A witness testifies that they saw John rob the bank. This is direct evidence because the witness is the original source of the information.
In conclusion, hearsay evidence is not no evidence, but it is generally considered less reliable than direct evidence.
