When you want to present your evidence in court, you will need documents and/or witnesses. But what kinds of witnesses? Generally, you need direct witnesses.
This principle is found in the hearsay rule. The rationale behind the hearsay rule is simple. Only a direct witness of an event can testify about that event. The witness is evaluated regarding their memory, honesty, bias, and ability to perceive and recount the relevant events. A witness cannot testify about an event that they did not perceive themselves.
If Pierre sues Roger because he claims the latter destroyed his Cadillac with a blacksmith’s hammer, how can he prove it? Someone might have seen Roger in action, a neighbor for example, Natalie, who called Pierre several days after the events to tell him what she had observed. At the trial, Pierre does not call Natalie as a witness. Instead, during his own testimony, he chooses to state that Natalie told him Roger used a blacksmith’s hammer to damage his car. The opposing counsel immediately objects on the grounds of hearsay. This objection will be sustained.
The importance of Natalie’s statement lies in the truth of its content. When an individual has direct knowledge of facts whose truth is important to the evidence, their statement cannot be presented through hearsay. Indeed, the statement cannot be reported “secondhand,” meaning indirectly. When Pierre testifies about what Natalie told him, the best a judge can conclude for Pierre is that Natalie actually said what Pierre reported. The judge cannot determine whether Natalie’s words are truthful or accurate, whether her memory is flawed, whether she is biased, or whether she was even capable of perceiving what allegedly happened. Thus, the witness Pierre cannot present Natalie’s words as proof of Roger’s liability, because even if the judge concludes, based on Pierre’s testimony, that Natalie said what he reported, the judge cannot evaluate the truthfulness and probative value of Natalie’s words.
This rule of evidence, however, has several exceptions, each subject to its own criteria, to allow evidence even though the witness is recounting a third party’s statement rather than their own direct observations of an event.
Among these exceptions, a judge may admit into evidence a spontaneous statement contemporaneous with the occurrence of the facts.
Pierre is suing Roger again for damaging his Cadillac. He did not catch him red-handed, but he heard something at the time of the events and rushed outside. Natalie and Lise, his neighbors, came running out of their respective houses across the street. Lise said: “What was that noise? What happened? Oh my god, Pierre, your car!” Natalie said: “It was Roger. I saw him use a blacksmith’s hammer and he ran down the street.” Unfortunately, Natalie passed away by the time of the trial. Pierre wants to present Lise to testify about Natalie’s remarks. Lise’s testimony regarding Natalie’s spontaneous statements, contemporaneous with the occurrence of the facts, is admissible to prove their content, namely the words spoken by Natalie. This is an exception to the prohibition against hearsay. Although Lise did not see who damaged the car, she can still testify as to Natalie’s statement because Natalie made a spontaneous statement contemporaneous with the facts in dispute. The court considers that under the circumstances, Natalie’s statement is reliable enough to be admitted into evidence.
When you have a case to present, you must always think about how you are going to make your case, with documents and witnesses, but also with admissible testimony.
