New Interpretations of Hearsay Rules |
Jennifer E. King for Lawyers.com
Any fan of "Law & Order" will be familiar with the concept of "hearsay" even if they're unable to precisely define it. But hearsay rules were front-and-center in a real-life courtroom drama--one of life, death and murder.
In the case, Mark Jensen, a Wisconsin man, was found guilty of murdering his wife Julie in 1998. Several weeks before her death, Julie Jensen talked to local police, her son's teacher and a neighbor, and told them that she suspected her husband was planning to kill her. She went so far as to give her neighbor a sealed letter that detailed her suspicions, and asked her neighbor to give the letter to the police if anything happened to her.
On Dec. 3, 1998, something did happen to Julie Jensen. After having fallen ill and taken to bed, she was found dead. Prosecutors allege that her husband fed her several doses of ethylene glycol--the sweet, syrupy but poisonous liquid commonly used as antifreeze--and then possibly smothered her with her pillow when she started to recover from the poisoning.
| Facts About Hearsay |
|
Hearsay, as defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."
Hearsay Is generally inadmissible only apply in criminal trials. Hearsay evidence is permitted in some other types of legal proceedings.
The hearsay rules have their roots in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which gives defendants the right to face their accusers in court.
Hearsay can include both oral and written accusations.
The Federal Rules of Evidence, which outline the admissibility of facts into evidence in federal trials, contains an entire section devoted to hearsay and lists 30 exceptions to the hearsay rules, including 24 exceptions that are permitted even if the declarant is available to testify, and 6 exceptions that are permitted if the declarant is unavailable to testify.
| | |
In his defense, Mark Jensen argues that his wife was depressed and angry because he was having an affair, so she did internet searches to an effort to frame him, then committed suicide by poisoning herself.
At trial, prosecutors wanted to use Julie Jensen's statements to speak as a "voice from the grave" in an effort to prove that Mark Jensen murdered his wife, but first they had to convince the courts to allow such evidence.
Constitutional Right to Face Accusers
The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." In plain English, that means that if a statement ("My husband is trying to kill me") made out of court (such as in a letter to the police) is being used to prove the truth of an assertion (that Mark Jensen allegedly murdered Julie Jensen) in a criminal trial, then the person who made the statement (in this case, Julie Jensen) must:
- Make the statement under oath;
- Make the statement in front of the judge and/or jury, and
- Consent to be cross examined by the other party to the case.
As hearsay rules are typically applied, since Julie Jensen was dead and, therefore, unable to appear in court, repeat these statements under oath, and submit to being cross examined by her husband's lawyers, the statements couldn't be introduced into evidence.
In the United States, rules prohibiting hearsay in criminal trials have their roots in part of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Confrontation Clause, which provides that: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
Exceptions to the
Hearsay Rule |
|
The Federal Rules of Evidence, which outlines the admissibility of facts into evidence in federal trials, contains an entire section devoted to hearsay and lists 30 exceptions to the hearsay rules, including 24 exceptions that are permitted even if the declarant is available to testify, and 6 exceptions that are permitted if the declarant is unavailable to testify.
| | |
A 2004 case, Crawford v. Washington, changed the standards for determining when hearsay statements are admissible in criminal cases. In that case, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that defendants have additional protections if the hearsay evidence is testimonial or accusatory in nature. For those types of accusations, the defendant must be given the opportunity to face his accuser. This case changed the hearsay standards that had been used for nearly 25 years. In the wake of this decision, a Wisconsin county judge ruled that Julie Jensen's letters and voicemail messages left for police were not admissible as evidence in the case against Mark Jensen.
Prosecutors appealed the judge's decision, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Julie Jensen's letter to police could be used as evidence in the trial if prosecutors could demonstrate there was sufficient evidence that Mark Jensen had murdered his wife, thus making it impossible for him to face Julie Jensen in court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also ruled that Julie Jensen's statements to her neighbor and son's teacher were "non-testimonial" in nature, allowing them to also be admitted into evidence.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court based its decision of the "doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing." Essentially, it said that Mark Jensen forfeited his Constitutional right to face his accuser, because his alleged actions (murdering his wife) made it impossible for her to appear in court.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2004 case, states, courts and lawyers are re-examining the hearsay rules, and how they are being applied in criminal cases.