1508

Let’s go through this in an organized fashion, which is the way you should analyze all hearsay issues.

First, does it meet the definition of hearsay -- an assertion offered for its truth?  Yes.

Second, is it exempted under 801(2)(1) as the prior statement of a witness? No. It’s not inconsistent, it’s not a consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of fabrication, and it’s not a statement of identification.

Third, is it a statement by an opposing party?  No. Arden is neither a party nor an opponent of Big Red.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1508.

But surely it must be admissible. We can't let the plaintiff offer the incriminating part of Arden’s statement out of context and not let the defense introduce the exculpatory part. That would sanction the admissibility of misleading evidence. What’s the solution?  How can the defense turn this “fairness” argument into a legal one?  The answer lies outside the hearsay rule. When you think you know it, click here to continue.