The hearsay rule is a foundational principle of the law of evidence in common-law systems. In its classical formulation, hearsay is an out-of-court statement — made by someone other than the witness currently testifying — offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Such statements are presumptively inadmissible because the original speaker (the "declarant") was not under oath, cannot be cross-examined, and the trier of fact cannot observe their demeanor.
The rule is codified in the United States in Federal Rules of Evidence 801–807. Rule 801(c) defines hearsay; Rule 802 establishes the general prohibition; Rules 803, 804, and 807 enumerate exceptions, including present sense impressions, excited utterances, business records, dying declarations, and statements against interest. The rule operates similarly, with variations, in England and Wales (now substantially reformed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss. 114–136), Canada (under the principled approach articulated in R v Khan [1990] and R v Khelawon [2006]), and Australia (under the Evidence Act 1995).
A statement is not hearsay if offered for a purpose other than its truth — for example, to show the statement was made, to establish notice, or to demonstrate the declarant's state of mind. Many jurisdictions also exempt prior inconsistent statements, admissions by a party-opponent, and certain identifications.
In criminal proceedings, the hearsay rule intersects with constitutional confrontation rights. The U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), held that "testimonial" hearsay is barred by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination, regardless of whether an evidentiary exception applies.
Civil-law systems (France, Germany, most of Latin America) do not have a formal hearsay rule; judges weigh such evidence for what it is worth. International tribunals — including the ICTY, ICTR, and ICC — generally admit hearsay but assess its probative value cautiously, as reflected in ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence Rule 63.
Example
In *Crawford v. Washington* (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Michael Crawford's assault conviction because the trial court admitted a tape-recorded statement by his wife — who did not testify — violating the Confrontation Clause.
Frequently asked questions
Not strictly. The ICC, ICTY, and ICTR generally admit hearsay evidence but weigh its probative value carefully, unlike common-law domestic courts.
Keep learning