Forfeiture of Hearsay Objection under Evidence Law
Forfeiture of Hearsay Objection under Evidence Law
What is Hearsay?
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Generally, hearsay is inadmissible because the declarant is not available for cross-examination, which affects reliability.
What is Forfeiture of Hearsay Objection?
Forfeiture of the hearsay objection means that a party who would otherwise object to hearsay loses the right to exclude the hearsay evidence because of their own misconduct or wrongdoing. In other words, the opposing party’s wrongful acts cause the witness or declarant to be unavailable or prevent the opposing party from challenging the evidence.
Why Does Forfeiture Occur?
The doctrine prevents a party from benefiting from their own wrongdoing, such as:
Causing a witness not to appear.
Intimidating or coercing a witness.
Destroying or tampering with evidence.
This doctrine serves the public policy interest of ensuring that justice is not obstructed by bad faith conduct.
Legal Basis and Requirements
To apply the forfeiture doctrine to hearsay, courts generally require:
Wrongful Conduct: The party against whom hearsay is offered engaged in wrongful or bad faith conduct.
Causation: The wrongful conduct caused the declarant to be unavailable or otherwise prevented the opposing party from objecting effectively.
Intent or Knowledge: Often, the conduct must be intentional or at least reckless.
When these elements are met, the hearsay objection is forfeited, and the statement may be admitted as an exception.
Key Case Law on Forfeiture of Hearsay Objection
1. Giles v. California (2008)
Facts: Defendant was charged with domestic violence; the victim made statements before becoming unavailable.
Issue: Whether a defendant forfeits hearsay objections by wrongdoing that causes witness unavailability.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture requires the defendant’s wrongdoing to be motivated at least in part by a desire to prevent the witness from testifying.
Significance: Established the intent requirement for forfeiture of hearsay objection due to witness unavailability.
2. United States v. Podlog (10th Cir. 1997)
Facts: Defendant intimidated a witness who then refused to testify.
Holding: The court admitted the witness’s prior statements under the forfeiture doctrine, reasoning that the defendant’s misconduct caused the unavailability.
Significance: Reinforced that bad faith conduct causing witness unavailability forfeits hearsay objections.
3. People v. Scott (Cal. 2015)
Facts: Defendant coerced a witness into silence, preventing live testimony.
Holding: The court held that the defendant forfeited the hearsay objection because the wrongdoing caused the witness’s absence.
Significance: Showed application in state courts emphasizing causation and intent.
Application of the Doctrine
When a party is responsible for making a witness unavailable, their hearsay objection to that witness’s prior statements can be overruled.
This allows introduction of statements like prior testimony, recorded statements, or affidavits.
The doctrine promotes fairness by not allowing manipulation of the evidentiary process.
Summary
Hearsay is generally inadmissible, but a party who causes unavailability or prevents cross-examination forfeits the right to object to hearsay.
The forfeiture doctrine requires:
Wrongful conduct by the party opposing admission.
That the conduct caused unavailability or prevented objection.
Usually, an intent to prevent testimony.
Case law such as Giles v. California establishes the intent requirement.
The doctrine prevents parties from benefiting from wrongdoing that obstructs justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments