Breaking a leg

[RJNorton]

(11-30-2012 06:12 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Roger,
Gossip magazines make their living on hearsay. Just because the author of a gossip article is dead doesn't sanctify what he wrote is the truth.

Hearsay can be either true or false. Mary Surratt was hanged due to hearsay. John Lloyd testified to the words of Mary Surratt. Mary Surratt was not allowed to take the stand. In other words, Lloyd was testifying as to what another person said, and the court did not hear from the other person. There was no one else to corroborate Lloyd's version of what Mary said. Lloyd also testified as to what Booth and Herold said about midnight on the 14th. Booth said little, if anything, but Herold said quite a bit. All of that testimony of Lloyd is hearsay because he is testifying about the words of either dead people (Booth) or people who are not allowed to testify (Herold). The same is true about Weichmann's testimony concerning certain uncorroborated conversations or words spoken by Mary Surratt - all of that is hearsay. The court never heard her version of the conversations.

This isn't to say Mary Surratt would have been found innocent if all the hearsay of Lloyd and Weichmann were thrown out. But the government's case against her would definitely have been weakened, and I don't believe she would have hanged. I suppose it's possible their hearsay could have been allowed under some technicality.

Hearsay evidence can be thrown out in court irregardless if it's true or false. Evidence that is 100% true can be dismissed as hearsay as well as evidence that is 100% false. I still think Booth's diary would probably be admitted - I don't see his own writing as being hearsay, even if some of what he wrote was wrong or embellished.