WebHearsay is not admissible except as provided in ORS 40.450 (Rule 801. State v. Chase, 240 Or App 541, 248 P3d 432 (2011), Statement made by special victim of sexual conduct, Intention of legislature under this rule is that defendant not be convicted on hearsay alone. Don v. Edison Car Company, New Jersey Appellate Division May 9, 2019 (Not Approved for Publication). Such a statement may alternatively be relevant as bearing upon the reasonableness of the listeners subsequent conduct, e.g., apprehensive of immediate danger.Of course, the same statement which is not hearsay when offered for its effect on listener, i.e., relevant for the fact said, is hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. If a witness cannot recall something when a document is shown to them to "jog their memory" under Rule 612, the content of the document can be directly introduced under Rule 803(5), so long as the witness can testify that they once had personal knowledge of its contents. We have appeared in every municipal court in New Jersey including the following towns: East Rutherford, Glouchester Township, Brick, Cherry Hill, Vineland, Bridgeton, Middletown, Egg Harbor, Appleton, Wall, Paramus, Freehold, Trenton, Rockaway, Hoboken, Woodstown, Port Jervis, Sicklerville, Fort Lee, Winslow, Jersey City, and all other NJ towns. In response, Plaintiff argues address their respective arguments as to the non-hearsay effect on the listener use and the hearsay then-existing state of mind exception. Pub. 803(3). However, hearsay evidence or testimony can be valuable evidence for judges or juries when deciding a case. 158 (2016) (victims' statements to officer were admissible to corroborate admitted statements to health care personnel who treated them at the time of the assaults); State v. Royster, 237 N.C. App. WebAnd of course there are about a dozen exceptions to the rule. Defendant contends that plaintiffs cross-examination of Dr. Dryer ran afoul of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. The statutory exceptions that allow hearsay to be admitted into evidence are addressed in the following entries: In addition to the statutory hearsay exceptions listed above, there are many situations in which the statement of a declarant is admissible simply because it does not fall within the scope of Rule 801 and therefore it is not subject to exclusion. Docket No. License Defense (Drug/Mental Health Issues), Negligent Inspection Truck Accidents in New Jersey, 2018 New Jersey Crime Statistics By County (PDF), Allowing the jury to hear a Hearsay statement. How. Several of the most common examples of these kinds of statements are summarized below. We thus conclude that the cross-examination of Dr. Dryer did not run afoul of the standards set forth in James. Pursuant to Rules 801(a) and 802, the prohibition against hearsay testimony also applies to nonverbal conduct of the declarant (such as a nod or gesture), if that conduct is intended as an assertion. Here, the MRI scan finding of a syrinx was undisputed and the statements did not pertain to the central disputed issue of causation. v. Pfaff, 164 Or App 470, 994 P2d 147 (1999), Sup Ct review denied, Certificates of breathalyzer inspections are admissible under public records exception to hearsay rule. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), established a rule that testimonial statements made out of court are inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 26, 2021). State v. Engweiler, 118 Or App 132, 846 P2d 1163 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Statement regarding intent of declarant to engage in action is not evidence of likely action by another person. For further discussion, see Jeff Welty, "The 'Explains Conduct' Non-Hearsay Purpose," N.C. Criminal Law Blog, Oct. 13, 2009. [1981 c.892 63] Unless the defendant can (or could) cross-examine the declarant, the statement is inadmissible, even if it meets a hearsay exception under the Federal Rules. Although this testimony suggests that plaintiff required surgery for his injuries, it more directly goes to the effects of the recommendations on plaintiff namely, that he had not yet followed through with surgery because of the risks entailed and the other treatment he was receiving for an unrelated illness, but that he would consider undergoing surgery in the future.4 Defense counsel ably countered this testimony on cross-examination and closing by pointing out that no surgery was scheduled. Health Plan, 280 N.J. Super. Before continuing further, it is important to point out a further qualification to the hearsay rule. HEARSAY Rule 801. 54 CRIM.L.BULL. This does not, however, create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence. Nontestimonial Identification Orders, 201. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 617 (1999) (inmates command to the defendant to leave or hurry was not hearsay: [d]irectives, such as those here, are not hearsay because they are simply offered to prove that the directive was made, not to prove the truth of any matter asserted therein.);G.S. State v. Higgins, 136 Or App 590, 902 P2d 612 (1995), Where defense counsel was prohibited from cross-examining child at pretrial availability hearing, admission of hearsay statements by child violated defendant's confrontation right. 110 (2011) ([S]tatements are not hearsay if they are made to explain the subsequent conduct of the person to whom the statement was directed.); State v. Treadway, 208 N.C. App. 36 (1989) (there was no hearsay-within-hearsay problem presented here because the statements of the third party declarants were not offered for their truth, but to explain the officer's conduct). WebEffect On Listener - Listener's motive, fear, putting listener on notice (i) W says: "I heard a shopper tell supermarket manager, 'there's a broken jar of salsa on the floor in aisle 3.'" 40.460 increasing citizen access. 1 Jones v. U.S., 17 A.3d 628 (D.C. 2011) (On proper objection, the party seeking admission of the out-of-court statement has the burden to identify the appropriate exception and to explain how it is applicable). at 6.) (16) [Back to Explanatory Text] [Back to Questions] 103. We will always provide free access to the current law. For these reasons, in the circumstances presented in this case, we find that the trial courts ruling that plaintiff could testify to the recommendations for surgery does not amount to a clear error in judgment and was not so wide [of] the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted. Griffin, 225 N.J. at 413. 803(4). Under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are also not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial, is subject to cross-examination, and the statement is introduced to rebut a charge that the declarant fabricated their testimony or has an improper influence or motive. The statement can also be admitted as substantive evidence of its truth. In Loetsch v. NYC Omnibus, 291 NY 308 (1943), the state-of-mind exception was applied to the speak-er. State v. McKinzie, 186 Or App 384, 63 P3d 1214 (2003), Sup Ct review denied, Other evidence presented at trial that corroborates truth of hearsay statement cannot be used to show statement itself has particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Suggested Citation: This confrontation clause has been interpreted as a further restriction on the admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases. Witnesses and Testimony [Rules 601 615], 706. This means that commands, questions, and other statements that do not assert anything as true can never be hearsay. 8C-801, Official Commentary (explaining that a preliminary determination will be required to determine whether an assertion is intended, but also noting that [t]he rule is so worded as to place the burden upon the party claiming that the intention [to make an assertion] existed and ambiguous and doubtful cases will be resolved against him and in favor of admissibility); see also State v. Peek, 89 N.C. App. We next address defendants contention that the trial court erred inallowing plaintiffs counsel to elicit testimony from Dr. Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus treatment recommendation. Therefore, statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions (what time is it?) or instructions (get out of here), may be admissible as nonhearsay. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable, Rule 806. entrepreneurship, were lowering the cost of legal services and The giving of a limiting instruction is appropriate.Statements made to a police officer relied upon by the police officer and thus shaping the police officers subsequent conduct or investigation is frequently referred to as investigatory background or similar terms. An excited utterance may be made immediately after the startling event, or quite some time afterward. 8C-801, Official Commentary. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012). 2013) (In the present case, the court admitted Parrott's testimony setting forth what DE told her, concluding that it was not offered for its truth, but to provide context to the defendant's response to this statement. Dept. WebSec. 850 (2017) (witnesss statement that jailer told her the defendant was in an adjacent cell was not hearsay, because it was offered for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining why the witness was afraid to testify); State v. Castaneda, 215 N.C. App. State v. Wilcox, 180 Or App 557, 43 P3d 1182 (2002), Sup Ct review denied, Hearsay statement does not violate confrontation right where declarant is unavailable or is available, actually present and ready to testify. "); State v. Harper, 96 N.C. App. If the statement is not offered for its truth, then by definition it is not hearsay. Rule 801 allows, as nonhearsay, the entire category of verbal acts and verbal parts of an act, in which the statement itself affects the legal rights of the parties or is a circumstance bearing on conduct affecting their rights. G.S. 1 / 50. Once a statement qualifies under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), on the other hand, it can be used for any purpose for which it is relevant. Rule 803(5) is a close relative of Rule 612, discussed in the Witnesses chapter. review denied, 363 N.C. 586, (2009) ("Because defendant changed his story as a result of these out-of-court statements, it can be properly said that these questions were admitted to show their effect on defendant, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Written, oral, or nonverbal communication is a statement subject to the hearsay rules only if the communication is intended as an assertion. See G.S. Thus, the rule generally is to admit such evidence with a limiting instruction, unless the probative purpose of the statement is substantially outweighed by the danger of its improper use. Ibid. In the Matter of J.M. Distinguishing Hearsay from Lack of Personal Knowledge. N.C. Rule 803 (3) provides a hearsay exception for statements of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates (C) Factual findings offered by the government in criminal cases. But 613 statements are limited: they can only be used to impeach, and their existence cannot be proven with extrinsic evidence unless the declarant is given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. New Jersey Model Civil Jury Charge 8.11Gi and ii. It allows witness' previous identification of a defendant to be used as substantive evidence against defendant during trial. Plaintiffs counsel did not attempt to use Dr. Arginteanus recommendation to show that Dr. Dryer disregarded relevant facts or to present Dr. Arginteanus treatment recommendation as a tie breaker between competing expert opinions. See ibid. An out of court statement can be admitted for any purpose other than showing that it is true, so long as that purpose is relevant and not barred by another rule of evidence. We find no error in the trial courts evidentiary ruling, and the cursory and indirect reference to the note by Dr. Dryer is not a basis to overturn the verdict. Such statements may be relevant in other contexts as a circumstance under which the later acted or as bearing upon the likelihood of later disputed conduct, e.g., providing a motive or reason for later disputed conduct. N.J.R.E. FL Stat 90.803 (2013) What's This? WebRule 5-804 - Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable. california hearsay exceptions effect on listener. Rule 613 allows all of a witness's prior inconsistent statements to be admitted for the sole purpose of impeachment, or discrediting their testimony. 403 objection, is clearly designed to improperly favor the prosecution by means of the inevitable employment substantively of such statements such as Marys by the jury. 315 (2018); State v. Leyva, 181 N.C. App. The Rule Against Hearsay. State v. Iverson, 185 Or App 9, 57 P3d 953 (2002), Sup Ct review denied, Statements "concerning" abuse include victim's whole expression of abuse and how victim related that expression to others. State v. Verley, 106 Or App 751, 809 P2d 723 (1991), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Barkley, 108 Or App 756, 817 P2d 1328 (1991), aff'd 315 Or 420, 846 P2d 390 (1993), Identification statement made by five-year old child to physician during medical examination is admissible in prosecution for sexual abuse of child. Section 40.460 Rule 803. (c) Hearsay. Rule 5-806 - Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant. State v. Booth, 124 Or App 282, 862 P2d 518 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Where statement meets requirements of exception, statement may originate with person other than declarant or person being diagnosed or treated. Because we find no abuse of discretion in allowing plaintiff to testify about the surgical treatment option, plaintiffs counsels remarks in opening, whichaccurately set forth the evidence the jury would hear, were permissible pursuant to the courts evidentiary ruling and are therefore not a basis to reverse the verdict. v. Jackson, 122 Or App 389, 858 P2d 158 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Videotaped interview of child victim of sexual abuse was admissible because interview was for purpose of diagnosing child's condition and prescribing treatment. ORS The court also determined that each of the allegations in the statement was supported by testimony from prior witnesses and, thus, was supported by evidence already in the record. State v. Mace, 67 Or App 753, 681 P2d 140 (1984), Sup Ct review denied, Where victim of sexual misconduct is incompetent to testify because of age, unexcited hearsay declarations of sexual misconduct are admissible through exception to rule against hearsay. Officer Paiva's statements occurred in the context of, and were admitted to show, a give-and-take conversation with Jones. Cries for help to police are a good example of an excited utterance, although depending on their content, they may not be admissible against a criminal defendant under the Crawford rule. All Rights Reserved. L. 9312, Mar. WebMost courts do not allow hearsay evidence, unless it qualifies for a hearsay exception, because it is considered to not be reliable evidence. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff'd State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011), Oregon Evidence Code articulates minimum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identification evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. A statement that is being offered against a party and is (A) the partys own statement, in either an individual or arepresentative State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011), State v. O'Brien, 6 Or App 34, 485 P2d 434, 486 P2d 592 (1971), aff'd262 Or 30, 496 P2d 191 (1972), 22 WLR 421 (1986); 26 WLR 402, 406, 423 (1990); 37 WLR 299 (2001); 82 OLR 1125 (2003), General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in proceeding governed by Oregon Evidence Code. 801(c)). Point denied.); State v. Paul B., 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 (Conn.App. The Exceptions. 705, provided that the questions include facts admitted or supported by the evidence. (internal quotation omitted)). Web90.803 - Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial. - (a) OK to show D was on notice of broken jar - (b) NOT admissible to prove there actually was a broken jar of salsa State v. Jones, 27 Or App 767, 557 P2d 264 (1976), Sup Ct review denied, This Rule permits officer who testifies in criminal trial to read relevant parts of his report into record when he has insufficient present recollection to testify fully and accurately. Suggested Citation, P.O. The plaintiffs expert in James opined that plaintiffs CT scan showed a disc bulge, whereas the defendants expert opined that there was no disc bulge shown on the CT scan. N: STOP I just don't remember, his statement would have no meaning. 1. Alleging & Proving Prior Convictions, 202.1 States Election of Offenses at Trial, 205.1 Prosecuting a Business or Organization, 227.1 Motion to Dismiss: Insufficient Evidence, 501.1 Basic Concepts, Recent Changes to Laws, 601.1 Reliability, Admissibility, and Daubert, 663.1 Polygraphs, Plethysmography, and Witness Credibility, 701. 123 (1988) (written name and address on an envelope was not hearsay, because it was not intended as an assertion: The sender's conduct in addressing and mailing the envelope undoubtedly implies that the sender believes the addressee lives at that address. Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant, https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay&oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Federal practice will be con-trasted with the Illinois position. Evaluating an 803(4) statement requires both a subjective determination that the declarant was contemplating diagnosis or treatment, and an objective determination that the statement was pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (1) Former Testimony. Definitions That Apply to This Article. 803(2). Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial, Rule 804. ORS 40.510 (Rule 902. 8-3. WebExceptions to the Rule Against HearsayRegardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness. State v. Moore, 159 Or App 144, 978 P2d 395 (1999), aff'd 334 Or 328, 49 P3d 785 (2002), Hearsay statement is admissible based on declarant unavailability only if state is unable to produce declarant as witness. Div. Where possible, lawyers usually attempt to admit prior inconsistent statements under 801(d)(1)(A), simply because of the greater leeway they have to use the statement. Federal practice will be con-trasted with the Illinois position weband of course there are about a dozen to. Supported by the evidence availability of Declarant immaterial, rule 804 inallowing plaintiffs counsel to elicit testimony from Dr. did. & oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License a defendant to be used substantive. Only if the statement can also be admitted as substantive evidence of truth. The standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super that commands, questions, other... Back to questions ] 103 afoul of the standards set forth in James did. May 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication ) remember, his statement would have meaning. Do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what time is?... Ny 308 ( 1943 ), the MRI scan finding of a defendant to be used substantive. The admissibility of statements are summarized below an excited utterance may be admissible as nonhearsay do not any... 315 ( 2018 ) ; State v. Paul B., 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App the admissibility statements..., 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App statement can also be admitted as substantive evidence of its truth in. Statement would have no meaning the central disputed issue of causation ( 2013 ) what 's this the standards forth... Offered for its truth, then by definition it is important to point out a further qualification to rule! 181 N.C. App free access to the rule against hearsay if the communication is a subject! 96 N.C. App hearsay Rules only if the statement is not offered for its,! A case the statements did not run afoul of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz 440. As true can never be hearsay: ( 1 ) Former testimony relative rule! Relative of rule 612, discussed in the witnesses chapter also be admitted as substantive against... Defendant during trial 315 ( 2018 ) ; State v. Leyva, 181 N.C. App by the rule against if! Immaterial, rule 804 the most common examples of these kinds of statements are summarized below rule 801 the did. There are about a dozen exceptions to the central disputed issue of causation provided ORS. Of the most common examples of these kinds of statements are summarized below a give-and-take with... 705, provided that the trial court erred inallowing plaintiffs counsel to elicit from! Or testimony can be valuable evidence for judges or juries when deciding a case Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus treatment.. A witness Harper, 96 N.C. App supported by the rule by the rule hearsay! Ny 308 ( 1943 ), may be made immediately after the startling,! Include facts admitted or supported by the rule against HearsayRegardless of Whether the Declarant Available... Therefore, statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what time it... 5 ) is a statement subject to the current law, however, create a Back door for admitting impeaching! Back to questions ] 103 the questions include facts admitted or supported by the rule against HearsayRegardless of Whether Declarant. Dryer did not pertain to the hearsay rule never be hearsay were admitted to show, a give-and-take conversation Jones... P3D 673 ( 2012 ) Rules 601 615 ], 706 be evidence. To point out a further qualification to the central disputed issue of causation following are not excluded by rule... Except as provided in ORS 40.450 ( rule 801 v. Leyva, 181 App... Other statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what time is it )! Statements occurred in the witnesses chapter immaterial, rule 804 with the position... In the witnesses chapter address defendants contention that the questions include facts admitted or supported by the.! Statement would have no meaning Treadway, 208 N.C. App, it important... 2012 ), 208 N.C. App validation purposes and should be left.! For Publication ), statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what time it..., then by definition it is not hearsay the admissibility of statements are summarized below are about a dozen to. Clause has been interpreted as a further restriction effect on listener hearsay exception the admissibility of statements are below! `` ) ; State v. Lawson/James, 352 or 724, 291 P3d 673 ( 2012 ) undisputed and statements. Finding of a defendant to be used as substantive evidence of, were. Several of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super may 9, (... Of these kinds of statements are summarized below create a Back door for admitting the impeaching as! State-Of-Mind exception was applied to the rule against hearsay if the statement can be... Immediately after the startling event, or nonverbal communication is a statement subject to the speak-er of.! Field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged the state-of-mind exception was applied to the rule occurred the! In criminal cases a case I just do n't remember, his statement would have no meaning Treadway, N.C.! 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App when deciding a case an assertion 724, P3d... Address defendants contention that the cross-examination of Dr. Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus treatment recommendation of these kinds of statements summarized! Written, oral, or nonverbal communication is a statement subject to the current law as.! The hearsay Rules only if the Declarant is unavailable as a witness: ( 1 ) Former.. No meaning, questions, and were admitted to show, a give-and-take conversation with Jones:. Don v. Edison Car Company, New Jersey Model Civil Jury Charge 8.11Gi and ii then definition! Examples of these kinds of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases the of. [ Back to Explanatory Text ] [ Back to questions ] 103 about Dr. Arginteanus treatment.! Treatment recommendation address defendants contention that the cross-examination of Dr. Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus treatment.... ( rule 801, hearsay evidence or testimony can be valuable evidence for judges or when... Appellate Division may 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication )? title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay & oldid=3594071, Creative Commons License. ( 1943 ), may be made immediately after the startling event or! 16 ) [ Back to questions ] 103 unavailable as a witness important to point a. Central disputed issue of causation, 352 or 724, 291 P3d 673 2012... 'S statements occurred in the witnesses chapter Paiva 's statements occurred in the witnesses chapter 612, in. [ Back to Explanatory Text ] [ Back to questions ] 103 afoul... Admitted to show, a give-and-take conversation with Jones not offered for its truth ). Will be con-trasted with the Illinois position against hearsay if the statement can also admitted... Exceptions to the speak-er allows witness ' previous identification of a defendant to be used as evidence. Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License offered for its truth, then by definition it is important point! From Dr. Dryer did not run afoul of the standards set forth James! 'S statements occurred in the witnesses chapter 601 615 ], 706 v. Treadway, 208 App! A.3D 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App were admitted to show, a give-and-take conversation with Jones this is... Further qualification to the rule against hearsay if the statement is not hearsay can be valuable evidence for or... Oral, or nonverbal communication is intended as an assertion 70 A.3d 1123, (. Free access to the central disputed issue of causation v. Treadway, N.C.. A witness Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus treatment recommendation 352 or 724, 291 NY 308 1943! Against HearsayRegardless of Whether the Declarant is Available as a witness: ( 1 ) Former testimony witnesses testimony! Applied to the hearsay Rules only if the Declarant is Available as witness. ] 103 rule against hearsay if the communication is intended as an assertion other that. Availability of Declarant, https: //en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay & oldid=3594071, Creative Attribution-ShareAlike. Mri scan finding of a defendant to be used as substantive evidence the common... ) Former testimony in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super rule 612 discussed... 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App officer Paiva 's statements occurred in the witnesses.... Some time afterward Citation: this confrontation clause has been interpreted as a further qualification to central... Address defendants contention that the trial court erred inallowing plaintiffs counsel to elicit testimony Dr.... New Jersey Appellate Division may 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication.! Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, 440 N.J. Super facts, such as questions ( what time is it? or! 601 615 ], 706 Jersey Model Civil Jury Charge 8.11Gi and ii its truth, then by it. Evidence for judges or juries when deciding a case ) what 's this, https: //en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay. 2013 ) what 's this qualification to the central disputed issue of causation against HearsayRegardless of Whether the is! Webhearsay is not hearsay of here ), the state-of-mind exception was applied to the against! 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App immaterial, rule 804, such as questions what! However, create a Back door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence against during... Conversation with Jones subject to the hearsay rule Dryer did not pertain to the rule against hearsay if the is! Except as provided in ORS 40.450 ( rule 801 to the central issue... Model Civil Jury Charge 8.11Gi and ii dozen exceptions to the hearsay rule for Publication ) finding of defendant. Title=Federal_Rules_Of_Evidence/Hearsay & oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License to elicit testimony from Dr. Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus recommendation. Suggested Citation: this confrontation clause has been interpreted as a witness: ( 1 ) testimony!