Hearsay?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Yes, but we are accustomed to the proceedings of actual trials. A preliminary hearing is somewhat different. And that might be why the defense even tried to introduce the 26 volumes. I am only guessing and asking whether or not this makes legal sense.

The judge probably asked The NYTimes what they thought, so hearsay it would be

[Andrew Mason]

On page 178 of ?Truth Withheld? by James T. Tague, he states that in a preliminary hearing to determine whether there were grounds to bring Clay Shaw to trial, that the defense tried to introduce the 26 volumes of the Warren Report in their defense. But it was denied as hearsay.

I am guessing that the reason for this has to do with the requirements of how evidence has to be introduced. But I would like to know what the legal scholars have to say about this. Do we have any knowledgeable legal eagles here that want to respond?

The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay.  It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.

[Charles Collins]

The 26 volumes was correctly rejected as hearsay.  It contains testimonies and statements of witnesses which can only be admitted by calling the witnesses themselves and allowing the opposing party to cross-examine them. Although at a preliminary inquiry the threshold for committal to stand trial is much less than is required for a conviction (the test is essentially whether there is some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict) the same rules of evidence that apply at a trial are followed.

Thanks, that explains it.