Article Outline
[Back to Article]
AN OVERVIEW OF RELEVANCE AND HEARSAY:
A NINE STEP ANALYTICAL GUIDE
NORMAN M. GARLAND 1
1. What is the evidence?
2. What is the evidence offered to
prove?
3. Does the evidence help to
prove that for which it is offered?
A. Logical Relevance Defined
B. Using a Syllogism:
Identifying the Inference (Logical Premise)
4. Is the evidence, though
logically relevant, inadmissible because it is unduly unfair?
5. Is the evidence a statement?
6. If the evidence is a statement,
is the evidence of the statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted (or,
alternatively, need the statement be true to be probative)?
A. Operative Legal Fact
B. State of Mind of the Auditor
C. State of Mind of the Declarant
(Circumstantial Evidence of State of Mind)
D. State of Mind (Knowledge) of
the Declarant on the "Traces of the Mind" Theory
E. Evidence That is
Otherwise Not Offered for the Truth of the Matter Asserted (NOTMA)
7. If the evidence of the
statement is hearsay (i.e., offered for the truth of the matter asserted), is the
statement within an exemption from or exception to the hearsay rule?
8. If the statement is not
admissible under a traditional exemption from or exception to the hearsay rule, is it
admissible under a catch-all exception (Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5))?
9. In a criminal prosecution, is admission of the
hearsay statement forbidden by the Confrontation Clause or required by the Due Process
Clause under Chambers v. Mississippi?
A. Confrontation Clause
B. Is the Statement's Admission Required Under the
Due Process Clause (Chambers v. Mississippi)?
Conclusion
[Back
to Article]