Common objection during Johnny's defamation trial: *Hearsay* : witness testifies about "what s/he heard" from a non-party (outside of court) but didn't witness it directly *Leading* : question is asked in a way that leads witness to an answer (for e.g. "the car you saw was blue right?" instead of "what was the color of the car you saw?") *Compound* : two or more questions are combined as one question to confuse witness, judge or jury *Lack of foundation* : witness fails to explain the background circumstances of how s/he knows the information s/he is testifying about *Relevance* : witness testimony or evidence has nothing to do with the case *Speculation* : witness does not know a fact to be true or not, but testifies about it anyway (speculating what might/would have happened) *Ask and answered* : same question is rephrased and asked to witness, hoping for a different answer *Argumentative* : lawyer starts to argue with the witness during cross examination *Non-responsive* : witness starts responding to a question with information that is completely unrelated to the question
@@HereComesWheely Likely popped up, like in mine, due to the amount of other people looking it up who are clicking on stuff about the trial and well, I might add I too have been looking at JD/AH videos. That's what I'm assuming anyways. I clicked on this figuring I might as well find out exactly what hearsay meant. 😂
Umm Objection, hearsay Btw i can confirm that lawyer is illiterate or didn't studied basic laws properly or in simple word "being a lawyer after online classes"
If its prohibited then why tf are Amber's lawyers able to do it every five seconds when depp isn't even talking about anyone else outside of court besides himself and amber.
No, hearsay is prohibited, calling out hearsay isn't and should be done when you notice it happening...Heard's lawyers on the other hand abuse this to confuse the judge, jury and everyone else....or they're just morons
They’re both self explanatory. Leading is when the lawyer is leading the witness to say diffferent things and lack of foundation is the lack of foundation 😭😭
Hearsay is literally “i heard someone say” and it is inadmissable because the person that made the original statement, did not do so under oath and therefor could be lying. In other words, it it were admissible, anyone could offer hearsay evidence and not be charged with perjury (lying) Example: my cousin is on trial for stealing something. But i tell someone, say a police officer, that no my cousin didnt steal that thing and it was someone else. Then when the officer is on the witness stand, he correctly gives my false statement and my cousin walks off scott free and even worse, someone else gets convicted because of my statement. It is extremely ludicrous and careless to allow hearsay to be admissible as evidence.
@@docastrov9013 keep in mind it is a lot harder to fake statements made outside of the context of a trial such as in a wire tap situation. One of the points of hearsay is to prevent potentially fabricated statements from being used as evidence, but why would anyone fabricate a statement if it’s made before the trial began?
I’m absolutely astonished that Amber Heard’s lawyers-plural-do not understand this basic law. It’s literally one of the earliest things you’d learn in law school.
Yeah, they don’t understand it. Only you do. You are so intelligent. They are so stupid. They have clearly faked their way to the top echelons of legal practitioners. Blah blah blah, yada yada yada.
I mean, let’s look at her lead lawyer: she’s just a top lawyer earning more money in a month than you’ll probably make in a whole year, but hey, she’s so stoooooooopid... “Elaine was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers in 2003, an honor limited to the top 1% of attorneys in each state; in 2005, she was inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, an honor limited to 500 trial lawyers under the age of 70 in the United States. Furthermore, in 2007, she was chosen for Fellowship in Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society comprised of less than 1% of American lawyers.” But yeah, that doesn’t matter because a bunch of TH-cam armchair experts who have no legal experience say otherwise. Truth is not every case goes smooth. As with everything in life: not every world champion of whatever sport does incredibly well at each event. That doesn’t mean he isn’t trained well enough. This is also a tough case for them, and public opinion is making them look worse than they are faring, especially given the case they have.
@@kencur9690 IF she’s SOOOOOOOOO good, then why is she getting BODYSLAMMED in open court by “lesser” lawyers? Seriously I’m not opining about anything. She’s arguing with a judge about objections-WHO IS A LAWYER HERSELF BTW-and getting verbally sliced to ribbons by Camille and Co. Those are just the facts. My god, you’d think ppl would be able to see that a long career as a lawyer DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A GOOD LAWYER. Because it doesn’t. Look at the “esteemed” graduates of Harvard Law who are literally acting in violation of the laws they have sworn to uphold. Giuliani, Eastman, Cruz, Hawley, Dershowitz… Hush troll.
@@lynnerose7891 uhm, where are you seeing the “lesser lawyers”, exactly? Right, because Mr Depp hired his lawyers from the legal advice bargain bin. You’re a moron, that’s all, so it would be wise to hush yourself.
@@lynnerose7891 by the by, you’d think people would understand the difference between merely “a long career” and the achievements noted above. But then again I’d be happily surprised if you’d think at all.
The best explanation I heard for it: hearsay is when you should be getting the evidence from a better source. If A saw something, go get A to testify to it, rather than asking B. Similarly, if medical records say something, admit the records as evidence or get the Doctor to testify, don't ask the patient.
I already knew about this definition of hearsay but it doesn’t explain why Amber cannot say what SHE said in a conversation that occurred outside of court (even to Johnny) without being objected upon for hearsay.
I have a question. How come someone doesn't get charged for perjury in nearly every case? Surely at least one person is going to be lying otherwise there would be no case to have. Which leads to another question, what's the point in being sworn in if you can just lie anyway?
Because if that happened no one would want to testify. It would be harder to get people to speak if anything they remember wrong or is reluctant to admit would lead to a perjury charge, so these tend to be rare. Probably the crime that has the fewest charges in proportion to how many times it happens. And I'm not sure, but I believe the parties have some extra protection, or else every single case would have, by definition, at least someone committing perjury, and an extra charge thrown on top of everything else could 1) discourage plaintiffs from actually seeking out justice in the first place 2) discourage defendants from trying to defend their case. Even if you weren't lying, losing the case would mean you legally were, so this would make the whole process more difficult.
Hearsay is used in everyday parlance in all English speaking countries. It is predominantly used by older people. My grandparents always warned, "don't listen to hearsay."
I'd like to add onto this that hearsay introduces another factor- another chance that the information provided was a lie. it effectively doubles the chances because the information was passed from one person to another before being started in court. Basically, there's no punishment for lying in society, so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that the statement, although true; "he said that ..."; might actually be incorrect or exaggerated information when compared with the source record: truth or fact. I like to think of it as word of mouth. Just take rumors, factoids and conspiracies online as example. I tell people hearsay is not admissable when debating things online, because it always has the chance of, again, being false or exaggerated.
Unsubstantiated rumors are the most common example of hearsay, so people tend to treat them like synonyms, but it does risk overlooking some very critical exceptions and nuances. For example, "video evidence" has been ruled hearsay from time to time, but isn't generally regarded as unreliable evidence. (Generally, lawyers need to be able to present a security guard that can be under oath and cross examined that can testify to the veracity of the security tapes and answer questions about the security system.) The supreme court also ruled that official reports written in a professional capacity are not hearsay. If David worked at the bank and (as part of his job) filed a report saying Debbie walked in to the bank that day, then the report itself would be admissible. Official bank records, formal whistleblower complaints, medical charts at hospitals, etc. are exempt from the usual hearsay dismissals DESPITE being out of court written statements used for the truth of the matter asserted. Hope that helps.
In fact the reason for the rule is that the source cannot be cross-examined for accuracy bias etc, as well as truth; if the *source* cannot be cross-examined it is prima facie hearsay. Strictly speaking your date of birth is hearsay absent calling you mother or another witness to your birth - it can *only* be hearsay.
Whether there is a punishment is a good simple rule of thumb. If a lie under those circumstances would constitute a crime (e.g. perjury or fraud) then it's mostly fine to rely on the truthfulness of that statement.
So basically half the time they call hearsay in the Johnny Depp trial, it is not really hearsay. Especially when they ask the person on stand what they saw.
Imagine if Wally's quote of what David said was admitted in court, and then later David was brought on and denied having said that, or says that Wally had misheard him before. That would be _not good._
So why is it still considered hearsay if the person testifying is talking about somebody else that is currently present in the courtroom? Can't they just ask that person if what the witness said is true?
That’s a good point, as long as the person gets sworn in I would think so. Although I bet there is a whole crap ton of vetting a witness etc so it may interrupt the process. The more I learn about the court process, the less I seem to understand though lol.
@WW1 Good question! I have not watched the trial & I don't know the question you are referring to but you've actually answered your own question! If witness 1 wants to testify, "Witness 2 said that Mary robbed the store", this would be hearsay if used to prove that Mary robbed the store. Instead, witness 2 would need to take the stand and testify, "I saw Mary rob the store." That would not be a problem. LMK whether that makes sense.
@@USLawEssentials Please please watch some of the trial. Both Depp and Heard have been cut off with hearsay objections before they can even get 2 words out. And often it is when they are answering open-ended questions about what they witnessed each other doing and saying.
I am very happy to hear that, thank you. If you are interested there is more here: uslawessentials.com/courses/hearsay-non-herasay-and-exceptions-to-the-hearsay-rule/
In the example of hearsay, David states "I saw Debby go to A bank early in the morning". When Wally is on the stand he says that David stated "I saw Debby go to THE bank.." would that not be an example of double hearsay because he did not repeat the statement accurately?
Whether a statement is accurately quoted or not is a separate issue. If the out of court statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted then it is hearsay (unless an exception applies, there are some categories of non-hearsay but that's also a different topic).
Those things both mean the same thing, and David is obviously referencing that she went to THE bank in question. They didn’t ask him to repeat what he said to Wally, he is just testifying
In very simple terms hearsay is any evidence the *source* of which cannot be cross-examined - for example your date of birth is hearsay since you did not witness your own birth.
if I go to the police and say I didn't authorize my brother to drive my car, is my statement considered hearsay at trial? my brother gets charged with unauthorized vehicle use.
Hearsay only applies to statements that can not be cross examined. It is not hearsay as 1. You will sign a statement with the police, and 2. You can swear under oath that you made that statement. Also it is not hearsay to repeat something that a party to the trial said. For example, if I hear your brother say 'I drove my brothers car without permission', it would not be hearsay for me to repeat that in court as it would be considered an 'admission'.
What I did not understand is, why it is also "hearsay" when the witness repeat their own words. They are not allowed to say what they had said themselves, it seems to also fall under hearsay.
Oh so that is why when Ambers Lawyers called hearsay today it wasn't taken out because Johnny's lawyer used a witness statement from in court rather out of court.
I'm cackling when I'm detailing to my Grandpa what my younger sister did -why our tv antenna broke. But, She kept butting in "hearsay" I'm like, stop watching the frikkin trial 😅
Im still a bit confused as to how hear say applied to things that Amber said in court in the heard v Depp trial. They kept objecting to Amber saying what she had said to Johnny. Surely, if she witnessed herself saying something to Johnny then that wouldn't be hear say? This really confused me. Im also confused on what constitutes a foundation? (Ps. It may be an idea for anyone that knows this, to let ambers lawyer know as she doesn't seem to understand these things either! 😂)
@Ulikuo Literally every eyewitness testimony is about stuff said and done out of court. I have a friend whose abuse case got thrown out based on hearsay. The judge called her testimony hearsay, but did not call hearsay when her lying abuser testified.
It's pretty simple. You cannot speak on behalf of someone else and say what they said. You can say what you saw them doing, but you cannot say that they told you what they were doing.
Though instructive, I think the video fails to mention the most important reason why hearsay is inadmissible: it makes cross-examination impossible. If David testifies in court to what he saw, the opposing lawyer can cross-examine him and try to point out inconsistencies in the testimony to show that David either: a) is lying; b) is misremembering; or c) could've mistaken Debbie for someone else. But if Wally testifies to what David saw, then cross-examination is not possible, so to admit that as evidence would be admitting evidence that the opposing party does not have the opportunity to question or challenge.
All very factual points. This video is quite basic in understanding hearsay and totally glosses over the 3 situations that David’s statements would need to be cross-examined, which I believe are actually stated in federal law if I’m not mistaken, so 👍 helpful comment
I’m watching this after hearing it so many times in the Depp trial 🤣
same lmaoo
Bingo
LMAOOO
Sameeee
same
After hearing a lawyer hearsay himself I needed to know what it meant
the "you- you asked the question" gets me everytime
🤣👍
Hilarious 🤣
1k
Did I read that right?
Common objection during Johnny's defamation trial:
*Hearsay* : witness testifies about "what s/he heard" from a non-party (outside of court) but didn't witness it directly
*Leading* : question is asked in a way that leads witness to an answer (for e.g. "the car you saw was blue right?" instead of "what was the color of the car you saw?")
*Compound* : two or more questions are combined as one question to confuse witness, judge or jury
*Lack of foundation* : witness fails to explain the background circumstances of how s/he knows the information s/he is testifying about
*Relevance* : witness testimony or evidence has nothing to do with the case
*Speculation* : witness does not know a fact to be true or not, but testifies about it anyway (speculating what might/would have happened)
*Ask and answered* : same question is rephrased and asked to witness, hoping for a different answer
*Argumentative* : lawyer starts to argue with the witness during cross examination
*Non-responsive* : witness starts responding to a question with information that is completely unrelated to the question
Thank you!
Thank you my good sir!
I'm learning so much watching this case of JD - AH lmao
@@AmIWhatIAm 🤣
@@AmIWhatIAm
I'm learning English and laws with this case hahaha
POV: you came here after watching the Depp vs Heard trial in order to understand what this notion is about
exactly.
Yes
👀
Nope, popped in my recommended and came to peek at the comments
@@HereComesWheely Likely popped up, like in mine, due to the amount of other people looking it up who are clicking on stuff about the trial and well, I might add I too have been looking at JD/AH videos. That's what I'm assuming anyways. I clicked on this figuring I might as well find out exactly what hearsay meant. 😂
Johnny: "So I was-"
Rottenborn:"OBJECTION! HEARSAY"
Johnny:"But I didn't even-"
Rottenborn: "HEARSAY."
Johnny:"...."
Rottenborn:"AH! UH UH, HEARSAY. "
Objection, hearsay!
@@Haunted_Hunter 🤣🤣
Johnny:"Sir, can you please just let me-"
Rottenborn:"HEARSAY!"
@@PeakLinear Fr 😂
Exactly. Why were those objections sustained when Depp was talking about himself?
I'm here cuz of Johnny Depp's court case with amber. Just wanted to know "hearsay" means and used in court.
YES ME TOO😂
Same lmao. Now that I know it, I understood some of the jokes about Heard's lawyers laugh along.
Lol me too
hahaha me too
I learned it from watching Perry Mason, 50 years ago on Tv. You People are just sad. That’s fact and not hearsay.
Correction: hearsay is Said after johnny depp moves his mouth for more than two seconds
Umm Objection, hearsay
Btw i can confirm that lawyer is illiterate or didn't studied basic laws properly or in simple word "being a lawyer after online classes"
If its prohibited then why tf are Amber's lawyers able to do it every five seconds when depp isn't even talking about anyone else outside of court besides himself and amber.
Objection, hearsay
Objection, hearsay
“Objection! Hearsay!” “But... You asked the question?” “I know, but I am losing horribly and I am embarresed!”
Objection, hearsay
No, hearsay is prohibited, calling out hearsay isn't and should be done when you notice it happening...Heard's lawyers on the other hand abuse this to confuse the judge, jury and everyone else....or they're just morons
Finally, an explanation that everyone can understand! Thank you, Sir!
Glad it was helpful!
Really it wAs very helpfull
Even in these times it was helpful....🤣🤣 .... ( my dog step on a bee ) 😭😭😭😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Objection! Lack of foundation.
I think this is a perfect moment to release a video about what is "leading" and "lack of foundation".
Yea.. I'm wondering about the same thing
They’re both self explanatory. Leading is when the lawyer is leading the witness to say diffferent things and lack of foundation is the lack of foundation 😭😭
skip lol what don’t you understand lmfaoo it’s in the name
@@skiplol3421 are you disabled or something? It needs no explanation mate.
It's 7 years old...
Hearsay is literally “i heard someone say” and it is inadmissable because the person that made the original statement, did not do so under oath and therefor could be lying. In other words, it it were admissible, anyone could offer hearsay evidence and not be charged with perjury (lying)
Example: my cousin is on trial for stealing something. But i tell someone, say a police officer, that no my cousin didnt steal that thing and it was someone else. Then when the officer is on the witness stand, he correctly gives my false statement and my cousin walks off scott free and even worse, someone else gets convicted because of my statement.
It is extremely ludicrous and careless to allow hearsay to be admissible as evidence.
No it isn't. What would be the point of bugging/wiretaps then?
@@docastrov9013 to get information that you can then investigate and verify to be true?🤔
Naw that couldnt be it... too obvious... 🙄
@@docastrov9013 keep in mind it is a lot harder to fake statements made outside of the context of a trial such as in a wire tap situation. One of the points of hearsay is to prevent potentially fabricated statements from being used as evidence, but why would anyone fabricate a statement if it’s made before the trial began?
Congratulations you comprehend the video!
@@docastrov9013 The Police will just record it tho, if they wanna use it as evidence
I wonder how many of us came here after the Johnny Depp lawsuit
Apparently lots of us
Everyone
I’m absolutely astonished that Amber Heard’s lawyers-plural-do not understand this basic law. It’s literally one of the earliest things you’d learn in law school.
Yeah, they don’t understand it. Only you do. You are so intelligent. They are so stupid. They have clearly faked their way to the top echelons of legal practitioners. Blah blah blah, yada yada yada.
I mean, let’s look at her lead lawyer: she’s just a top lawyer earning more money in a month than you’ll probably make in a whole year, but hey, she’s so stoooooooopid...
“Elaine was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers in 2003, an honor limited to the top 1% of attorneys in each state; in 2005, she was inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, an honor limited to 500 trial lawyers under the age of 70 in the United States.
Furthermore, in 2007, she was chosen for Fellowship in Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society comprised of less than 1% of American lawyers.”
But yeah, that doesn’t matter because a bunch of TH-cam armchair experts who have no legal experience say otherwise. Truth is not every case goes smooth. As with everything in life: not every world champion of whatever sport does incredibly well at each event. That doesn’t mean he isn’t trained well enough. This is also a tough case for them, and public opinion is making them look worse than they are faring, especially given the case they have.
@@kencur9690 IF she’s SOOOOOOOOO good, then why is she getting BODYSLAMMED in open court by “lesser” lawyers?
Seriously I’m not opining about anything. She’s arguing with a judge about objections-WHO IS A LAWYER HERSELF BTW-and getting verbally sliced to ribbons by Camille and Co. Those are just the facts. My god, you’d think ppl would be able to see that a long career as a lawyer DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A GOOD LAWYER. Because it doesn’t. Look at the “esteemed” graduates of Harvard Law who are literally acting in violation of the laws they have sworn to uphold. Giuliani, Eastman, Cruz, Hawley, Dershowitz…
Hush troll.
@@lynnerose7891 uhm, where are you seeing the “lesser lawyers”, exactly? Right, because Mr Depp hired his lawyers from the legal advice bargain bin. You’re a moron, that’s all, so it would be wise to hush yourself.
@@lynnerose7891 by the by, you’d think people would understand the difference between merely “a long career” and the achievements noted above. But then again I’d be happily surprised if you’d think at all.
“Objection, Hearsay”
“But you asked the question”
“Oh oh uhh..”
Now, if you would like to spice things up. You object to hearsay on your own question.
The best explanation I heard for it: hearsay is when you should be getting the evidence from a better source.
If A saw something, go get A to testify to it, rather than asking B. Similarly, if medical records say something, admit the records as evidence or get the Doctor to testify, don't ask the patient.
What if A dies before the trial?
@@claudiot1859 Then you lost that piece of evidence.
The best explanation I heard for it. Objection! Hearsay.
i see anime avatar, i ignore.
@@Sedona_FD3S Objection, irony.
"Objection hearsay, leading, lack of foundation, calls for speculation"
- JD AH 2022
Simple and helpful video. Thank you. I had to search something up to understand the Depp trial. Stay strong Johnny.
This video was from 7 years ago
But it’s gaining more viewers this year because we are here to understand more on Johnny Depp’s case❤️❤️
I already knew about this definition of hearsay but it doesn’t explain why Amber cannot say what SHE said in a conversation that occurred outside of court (even to Johnny) without being objected upon for hearsay.
Maybe because what was said by her was being offered as the truth of the matter asserted? Just speculating here.
And you know....it was a lie so definitely hearsay
AH: "My dog stepped on a bee😫"
The Bee:"Objection your honour, Hearsay"🐝
I have a question. How come someone doesn't get charged for perjury in nearly every case? Surely at least one person is going to be lying otherwise there would be no case to have. Which leads to another question, what's the point in being sworn in if you can just lie anyway?
replying cuz i wanna know the answer too
Wants to know the answer too
Because if that happened no one would want to testify. It would be harder to get people to speak if anything they remember wrong or is reluctant to admit would lead to a perjury charge, so these tend to be rare. Probably the crime that has the fewest charges in proportion to how many times it happens. And I'm not sure, but I believe the parties have some extra protection, or else every single case would have, by definition, at least someone committing perjury, and an extra charge thrown on top of everything else could 1) discourage plaintiffs from actually seeking out justice in the first place 2) discourage defendants from trying to defend their case. Even if you weren't lying, losing the case would mean you legally were, so this would make the whole process more difficult.
It's hard to prove perjury, because human memory can be faulty and sometimes people are dumb and just forget some details
That was very clear and easy to understand
Thank you for allowing me to finally understand the advanced and evolved being that is Mr. Rottenborn. This helped plenty.
JOHNNY DEPP HAS BEEN “HEARSAY’ED” 1000 times AYEEE!!!!!!
"Objection hearsay. Objection lack of foundation."
- Queen Vasquez
Hearsay is used in everyday parlance in all English speaking countries. It is predominantly used by older people. My grandparents always warned, "don't listen to hearsay."
I love how this got recommended to me just now
Who’s here because of the Johnny Depp trial
Yo
Literally everyone. Like fisher.
I'd like to add onto this that hearsay introduces another factor- another chance that the information provided was a lie. it effectively doubles the chances because the information was passed from one person to another before being started in court. Basically, there's no punishment for lying in society, so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that the statement, although true; "he said that ..."; might actually be incorrect or exaggerated information when compared with the source record: truth or fact.
I like to think of it as word of mouth. Just take rumors, factoids and conspiracies online as example. I tell people hearsay is not admissable when debating things online, because it always has the chance of, again, being false or exaggerated.
Unsubstantiated rumors are the most common example of hearsay, so people tend to treat them like synonyms, but it does risk overlooking some very critical exceptions and nuances.
For example, "video evidence" has been ruled hearsay from time to time, but isn't generally regarded as unreliable evidence. (Generally, lawyers need to be able to present a security guard that can be under oath and cross examined that can testify to the veracity of the security tapes and answer questions about the security system.)
The supreme court also ruled that official reports written in a professional capacity are not hearsay. If David worked at the bank and (as part of his job) filed a report saying Debbie walked in to the bank that day, then the report itself would be admissible.
Official bank records, formal whistleblower complaints, medical charts at hospitals, etc. are exempt from the usual hearsay dismissals DESPITE being out of court written statements used for the truth of the matter asserted.
Hope that helps.
In fact the reason for the rule is that the source cannot be cross-examined for accuracy bias etc, as well as truth; if the *source* cannot be cross-examined it is prima facie hearsay. Strictly speaking your date of birth is hearsay absent calling you mother or another witness to your birth - it can *only* be hearsay.
Whether there is a punishment is a good simple rule of thumb. If a lie under those circumstances would constitute a crime (e.g. perjury or fraud) then it's mostly fine to rely on the truthfulness of that statement.
Atty.: Objection hearsay!
Judge: But that's your question
Oh boy
This just popped in my recommendations, I'm definitely watching a lot of Heards and Depps case.💀
Johnny depp summoned us
What a great time to recommend this. Truly comedic timing
thank you youtube recommendations.
now i can understand 75% of the johnny depp tri
So basically half the time they call hearsay in the Johnny Depp trial, it is not really hearsay. Especially when they ask the person on stand what they saw.
Yeah apparently the judge needs to brush up on what hearsay is.
@@lindenpeters2601 The judge was fine for the most part, often times, Amber's lawyer's objections were overruled.
Imagine if Wally's quote of what David said was admitted in court, and then later David was brought on and denied having said that, or says that Wally had misheard him before.
That would be _not good._
thanks for posting this. i used to live near an attorney and could ask such questions, but hang, they moved...
now i will listen to you...thanks again
POV: You’re here because of Johnny Depp
The fact that TH-cam recommended this to me after watching so many meme videos of the Johnny Depp v Amber turd trial is just HILARIOUS 😭😭😭
Oh. I thought this is when Johnny takes a breath.
When you've watched too many AH and JD trail that youtube starts recommending videos related to the court lol
Johnny Depp's trial brought me here
When Amber's lawyer's hearsay reached even in TH-cam Algorithm
So why is it still considered hearsay if the person testifying is talking about somebody else that is currently present in the courtroom? Can't they just ask that person if what the witness said is true?
Yep they do ask
That’s a good point, as long as the person gets sworn in I would think so. Although I bet there is a whole crap ton of vetting a witness etc so it may interrupt the process. The more I learn about the court process, the less I seem to understand though lol.
@WW1 Good question! I have not watched the trial & I don't know the question you are referring to but you've actually answered your own question! If witness 1 wants to testify, "Witness 2 said that Mary robbed the store", this would be hearsay if used to prove that Mary robbed the store. Instead, witness 2 would need to take the stand and testify, "I saw Mary rob the store." That would not be a problem. LMK whether that makes sense.
@@USLawEssentials it makes sense. It's been happening a lot in the Johnny Depp trial
@@USLawEssentials Please please watch some of the trial. Both Depp and Heard have been cut off with hearsay objections before they can even get 2 words out. And often it is when they are answering open-ended questions about what they witnessed each other doing and saying.
This popped up in my reccomended after watching the Amber vs Johnny Trial... Never in my life have I searched something like this before
i think david robbed the bank and he told wally that he saw debby going to the bank as a cover story. now debby is in jail
You should have been a juror.
🤣🤣
The fact I got this recommended to me directly after watching multiple videos of amber and Johnny is fucking hilarious
I am trying to teach hearsay to court appointed special advocate who are NON lawyers. These wee videos are a great help
I am very happy to hear that, thank you. If you are interested there is more here: uslawessentials.com/courses/hearsay-non-herasay-and-exceptions-to-the-hearsay-rule/
Recommended this video - guessing the algorithm knows I’m invested in the Johnny Depp trial
Why the lawyer can keep stop Johnny Depp to talk with the word hearsay without let him finish the sentence and the jury is ok with it?
Thank you so much, made me grasp the idea of hearsay so much better!
In the example of hearsay, David states "I saw Debby go to A bank early in the morning". When Wally is on the stand he says that David stated "I saw Debby go to THE bank.." would that not be an example of double hearsay because he did not repeat the statement accurately?
Whether a statement is accurately quoted or not is a separate issue. If the out of court statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted then it is hearsay (unless an exception applies, there are some categories of non-hearsay but that's also a different topic).
Those things both mean the same thing, and David is obviously referencing that she went to THE bank in question. They didn’t ask him to repeat what he said to Wally, he is just testifying
In very simple terms hearsay is any evidence the *source* of which cannot be cross-examined - for example your date of birth is hearsay since you did not witness your own birth.
I'M NOT SURPRISED BY HOW THIS CAME INTO MY RECOMMENDED! AFTER WATCHING THE JD AND AH TRIAL LOL
Popped up on my fyp guessing Johnny depp trip has something to do with this😂
This video is about to blow up thanks to the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial.
How many came here after Johnny vs heard trial video 😂
My dog stepped on a bee hearsay😂
Someone send this to Amber’s lawyers plz💀
Not TH-cam recommending this to me after I binge watched the Depp and Heard’s case
if I go to the police and say I didn't authorize my brother to drive my car, is my statement considered hearsay at trial? my brother gets charged with unauthorized vehicle use.
I'm not allowed to give you legal advice. Please contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
Its not hearsay at trial if you are in the courtroom saying it. You are there under oath and can be cross-examined.
SO I guess its hearsay since it was made to the police officer and not under oath?
Hearsay only applies to statements that can not be cross examined. It is not hearsay as 1. You will sign a statement with the police, and 2. You can swear under oath that you made that statement.
Also it is not hearsay to repeat something that a party to the trial said. For example, if I hear your brother say 'I drove my brothers car without permission', it would not be hearsay for me to repeat that in court as it would be considered an 'admission'.
MyMom IsAPsycho no
Lmao this video got recommended to me on the last day of the trial
Anyone here after "Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard"?
I just came here to read the comments that I knew would be related to the trial
Came here after Johnny Depp got "hearsay`d few times so i need to know what it is XD
This video really gonna blow up even more pretty soon
THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE Oh my god thank u i didnt know i needed this
Thanks for watching. Let me know if other topics interest you.
How many are hear during the depp trial
Yup
Here because TH-cam decided to properly educate me what hearsay means after the overuse of the term during Johnny Depp's trial.
What I did not understand is, why it is also "hearsay" when the witness repeat their own words. They are not allowed to say what they had said themselves, it seems to also fall under hearsay.
@Ulikuo how is that not literally every eyewitness testimony.
I’ve watched the Johnny Depp vs Amberturd short vids so much TH-cam suggested this video.
literally just watched some and got this recommended too lmao
Oh so that is why when Ambers Lawyers called hearsay today it wasn't taken out because Johnny's lawyer used a witness statement from in court rather out of court.
So basically hear+say means I *heard* someone *say* this and that
the fact that this video is popping up in everyone's recommended because of the Johnny and Amber trial
Don’t forget to watch at x1.5 speed.
Bro I was watching My dog stepped on a bee and then this was in my recommened lol.
Johnny Depp brought me here.
Same
The fact that TH-cam recommend this after watching clips from the Amber Vs Johnny Depp trial.... 🤣
Why is this in my recommended? Mr. Rottenborn did become a meme because of this, so I'm not surprised
Ahahahaha I had a laugh when this popped up in my recs. Quite informative...and timely.
Thank you! Very clearly explained.
I'm cackling when I'm detailing to my Grandpa what my younger sister did -why our tv antenna broke.
But, She kept butting in "hearsay" I'm like, stop watching the frikkin trial 😅
Im still a bit confused as to how hear say applied to things that Amber said in court in the heard v Depp trial. They kept objecting to Amber saying what she had said to Johnny. Surely, if she witnessed herself saying something to Johnny then that wouldn't be hear say?
This really confused me. Im also confused on what constitutes a foundation?
(Ps. It may be an idea for anyone that knows this, to let ambers lawyer know as she doesn't seem to understand these things either! 😂)
also confused about this
@Ulikuo Literally every eyewitness testimony is about stuff said and done out of court. I have a friend whose abuse case got thrown out based on hearsay. The judge called her testimony hearsay, but did not call hearsay when her lying abuser testified.
I knew what it meant but hearing it get thrown silly-willy around during Johnny’s trial I completely second guessed myself on the meaning
Mr.Rottenborn told me to watch this clip
can’t believe i just got this recommended to me. if i was a bad lawyer i would be saying objection hearsay rn
Objection, heresay
Here for Johnny's case.
TH-cam recommended this to me after watching too many depp-heard lawsuit videos. Bravo TH-cam.
Ohh same,I feel like Im about to be a better lawyer than AH’s team from how many court videos Im watching XD
I already knew what iy means i just came here to say
"OBJECTION HEARSAY"
Johnny depp be like
Anime pfp=cringe
@@mewhzy1501 anine
@@aniqnxbil anime* you troglodyte.
@@mewhzy1501 True.
I see what you are doing TH-cam, just what I needed.
TH-cam knows what they're doing by recommending this🤣
It's pretty simple. You cannot speak on behalf of someone else and say what they said. You can say what you saw them doing, but you cannot say that they told you what they were doing.
Rottenborn only watched this one single video before becoming a lawyer
What are the exceptions as you mentioned early in the video?
I bet Johnny watched this
Though instructive, I think the video fails to mention the most important reason why hearsay is inadmissible: it makes cross-examination impossible.
If David testifies in court to what he saw, the opposing lawyer can cross-examine him and try to point out inconsistencies in the testimony to show that David either: a) is lying; b) is misremembering; or c) could've mistaken Debbie for someone else.
But if Wally testifies to what David saw, then cross-examination is not possible, so to admit that as evidence would be admitting evidence that the opposing party does not have the opportunity to question or challenge.
All very factual points. This video is quite basic in understanding hearsay and totally glosses over the 3 situations that David’s statements would need to be cross-examined, which I believe are actually stated in federal law if I’m not mistaken, so 👍 helpful comment
We know why this is being viewed now days
after seeing so much amber and johnny depp hearsay, youtube finally did it's job and recommended me this.