How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Daniel Solutions Your Own Question
Daniel Solutions
Daniel Solutions, Criminal Defense Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 9934
Experience:  over 20 years of legal and professor of law experience
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Daniel Solutions is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Hi. my questions is What major cases were involved in the

Resolved Question:

Hi. my questions is: What major cases were involved in the establishment of the hearsay rule?

Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.
Thank you for allowing us to assist you with this problem. I am not fully aware of what prior steps you have taken.

In what state are you located?
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Illinois. I have tried researching sites such as Findlaw to see if I could finsd specific cases that put the hearsay rule into place.
Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.
Hearsay is created by statute but as you will see there is also caselaw addressing the issue.

(1) Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements.

Rule 106 permits the admission contemporaneously of any other part of a writing or recording or any other writing or recording which “ought in fairness” be considered at the same time. Prior Illinois law appears to have limited the concept of completeness to other parts of the same writing or recording or an addendum thereto. The “ought in fairness” requirement allows admissibility of statements made under separate circumstances.

(2) Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice.

Rule 406 confirms the clear direction of prior Illinois law that evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

(3) Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise.

Prior Illinois law did not preclude admissibility of statements made in compromise negotiations unless stated hypothetically. Because they were considered a trap for the unwary, Rule 408 makes such statements inadmissible without requiring the presence of qualifying language.

(4) Rule 613(a). Examining Witness Concerning Prior Statement.

Rule 613(a) provides that a prior inconsistent statement need not be shown to a witness prior to cross-examination thereon. Illinois Central Railroad v. Wade, 206 Ill. 523, 69 N.E. 565 (1903), was to the contrary.

(5) Rule 801(d). Statements Which Are Not Hearsay.

Rule 801(d)(1)(A) codifies an Illinois statute (725 ILCS 5/115–10.1) that applies only in criminal cases. It makes admissible as “not hearsay” (rather than as a hearsay exception) a prior inconsistent statement of a declarant who testifies at a trial or a hearing and is subject to cross-examination, when the prior inconsistent statement was given under oath at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or under other specified circumstances. The rule does not apply in civil cases. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) also codifies an Illinois statute (725 ILCS 5/115–12). It makes admissible as “not hearsay” a declarant’s prior statement of identification of a person made after perceiving that person, when the declarant testifies at a trial or hearing in a criminal case and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. Rule 801(d)(2) provides substantive admissibility, as “not hearsay,” for admissions of a party-opponent.

(6) Rule 801(d)(2)(D). Statement by a Party’s Agent or Servant.

Rule 801(d)(2)(D) confirms the clear direction of prior Illinois law that a statement by a party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, constitutes an admission of a party-opponent.

(7) Rule 803(13). Family Records.

The requirement that the declarant be unavailable and that the statement be made before the controversy or a motive to misrepresent arose, Sugrue v. Crilley, 329 Ill. 458, 160 N.E. 847 (1928), have been eliminated.

(8) Rule 803(14), (15), (19), (20) and (23).

With respect to records of or statements in documents affecting an interest in property, reputation concerning personal or family history, and concerning boundaries or general history, and judgments as to personal, family or general history or boundaries, Illinois law in each area was sparse or nonexistent.

(9) Rules 803(16) and 901(b)(8). Statements in Ancient Documents.

The 30-year limitation to real property, Reuter v. Stuckart, 181 Ill. 529, 54 N.E. 1014 (1899), is relaxed in favor of 20 years without subject matter restriction.

(10) Rule 804(b)(3). Statement Against Interest.

Rule 804(b)(3) makes applicable to the prosecution as well as the defense the requirement that in a criminal case a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible as a hearsay exception unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

(11) Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant.

Rule 806 dispenses with the requirement of an opportunity to deny or explain an inconsistent statement or conduct of an out-of-court declarant under all circumstances when a hearsay statement is involved. Whether Illinois law had already dispensed with the requirement with respect to a deposition was unclear.

(12) Rule 902(11). Certified Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.

Self-authentication of business records is provided by Rule 902(11), following the model of Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) and 902(12) and 18 U.S.C. 3505.

(13) Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents.

Rule 1004 does not recognize degrees of secondary evidence previously recognized in Illinois. Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. Bonner, 75 Ill. 315 (1874). In addition, it is no longer necessary to show that reasonable efforts were employed beyond available judicial process or procedure to obtain an original possessed by a third party. Prussing v. Jackson, 208 Ill. 85, 69 N.E. 771 (1904).

(14) Rule 1007. Testimony or Written Admission of Party.

The Rule 1007 provision that testimony or a written admission may be employed to prove the contents of a document appears never before to have been the law in Illinois. Bryan v. Smith, 3 Ill. 47 (1839).

Customer: replied 6 years ago.

thank you for all the info. do you know how and why the rule was established in general? not within my state, just in general.


Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.
The rule was created in every state because there was need to protect the fundamental constitutional rights under the US Constitution that guarantee the Right to Due Process.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Oh okay, I understand now. I could not find any information as to why the rule was put into place to begin with. The internet can be a good source for information, but it can sometimes be an overload of info as well. All that does is confuse you even more. Thank you for clarifying.
Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.
The internet is good but does not replace law school... or at least not yet. lol

Youre welcome. Have a good nigth.
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Thank you. You do the same. Smile I will accept your answer.
Expert:  Daniel Solutions replied 6 years ago.

You stated you accepted my answer but it seems you didn't click the ACCEPT so I ask that you click ACCEPT because that is the only way I receive credit for my responses.


Thank you.

Daniel Solutions and 5 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you