Hearsay Evidence In A Criminal Trial

Evidence in a criminal trial

The first quotation is hearsay evidence. I think this because the person giving the testimony overheard the conversation between Micheal and the victim. Furthermore, in the textbook it states" hearsay evidence is evidence of someone other than a witness who said or wrote something out of court that may be relevant to the fact of the case. It is usually related to a private conversation that [has] been overheard by a uninvolved person." The person giving the testimony is someone other than a witness. This means that the person saw nothing, but heard everything.

I think that the evidence would be not admissible in court since, the person stating the evidence was not directly involved, but overheard a conversation. …show more content…
I think this because in the quote is states that Mr. Smith stole a car three years ago, and similar fact evidence is when the prosecution presents similarities of previous criminal acts committed by the accused.

I believe that the evidence is admissible since the person presenting the evidence was a victim of Mr. Smiths. Furthermore, the person stating the evidence would have said almost the same thing three years ago, but instead of the past it would be the present, and if it was admissible than, it would be admissible now.

Similar fact evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence is not a eyewitness, the evidence is circumstantial.

I think that the fifth quotation is character evidence, since the person stating the evidence brings up the accuseds character since, in the quote it states "I couldn't never imagine him raising his hand to anyone."

I believe that character evidence is admissible in court since, there is no reason why it should not be admissible.

Character evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence saw nothing, but is only stating the accuseds good …show more content…
Hearsay evidence is circumstantial evidence because it is not direct. Direct evidence is a testimony of an eyewitness. Since the person stating the evidence saw nothing, but only heard his or her mom state that it was Bubba.

The eighth quotation is a confession, I think this since the accused confessed to a undercover police officer that he committed the crime after a few hours of talking.

I think that the evidence is not admissible since the accused was not confronted with a accusation of guilt. Furthermore, the confession was obtained by a police officer, the police officer did not inform Mr. Herbert of his right to remain silent, and the accused was not given access to a lawyer.

Confession evidence is direct since, the police officer was present when Mr. Herbert confessed to the crimes. The police officer was a eyewitness.

The second last quotation is hearsay evidence, I think this because the father heard the voice of the accused, but never saw them. Furthermore, the evidence cannot be a confession because the father never confronted the accused with a