« The Permanent Disability of a Justice | Main | The end of the Warren Court (Reposted and Updated) »

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Fun with evidence

D6h4tVFWsAAGB3bThe problem set I use in class has this as a problem in the hearsay section. Supposedly Charles Manson's lawyer would make this objection.

The answer to the hearsay problem is that the name is not an assertion, because it labels someone without saying anything about the state of the world. But I have seen the point made that the real issue is not hearsay so much as lack of personal knowledge of the fact.

Anyway, something to share next semester.

Posted by Administrators on May 14, 2019 at 11:17 AM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink


Funny indeed, but not so recommended for teaching of course. For, hearsay doesn't touch of course common knowledge, but specific events, intervening as such. But even so:

Her name as known by her, is the core of authenticity. Behind it, nothing else can exist. Suppose that John tells Daniels, about an accident heard about from : James. Whether James is the ultimate source or not, wouldn't change the fact the John hasn't perceived nothing directly in his senses about the accident. So, the accident, or its description, may offer, multi, several parallel Universes ( about actually, what and if happened there in that accident).

But, the name of the girl, surly as known by her, theoretically, can't pause, any configuration of parallel Universes.It is common knowledge, born by her as ultimate authenticity.


Posted by: El roam | May 14, 2019 11:38:33 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.