Military Rule Of Evidence 801 - Hearsay
The United States Constitution guarantees, “in all criminal prosecutions,
[that an] accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the
witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. Amend VI. The Confrontation
Clause ensures the reliability of evidence against a defendant by subjecting
it to rigorous testing in an adversary proceeding.
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 (1990). This confrontation right forces all witnesses
to “submit to cross-examination, the ‘greatest legal engine
ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970) (footnote and citation omitted). At the most
fundamental level, the Confrontation Clause compels the witnesses to “stand
face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge
by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony
whether he is worthy of belief.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 (1895).
“Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant
while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted.” MRE 801(c). These statements
are generally inadmissible due to their lack of reliability. Hearsay statements
are sufficiently dependable to allow their untested admission against
an accused only when (1) the statements fall “within a firmly rooted
hearsay exception” or (2) they contain “particularized guarantees
of trustworthiness” such that adversarial testing would be expected
to add little, if anything to their reliability.
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980).
Statements are admissible under a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception
when they fall within a hearsay category whose conditions have proven
over time “to remove all temptation to falsehood, and to enforce
as strict an adherence to the truth as would the obligation of an oath”
and cross-examination at trial.
Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 244 (1895). Firmly rooted hearsay exceptions include: co-conspirator
statements,
Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171 (1987); spontaneous declarations,
White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992); statements made for the purposes of obtaining medical
treatment,
White v. Illinois; business records and public records,
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980); dying declarations,
Mattox v. U.S.; recorded recollection,
Hatch v. State of Okl., 58 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 1995); state of mind,
U.S. v. Alfonso, 66 F. Supp 261 (D.P.R. 1999); and cross-examined prior trial testimony,
Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S 204 (1972).