{"id":4524,"date":"2018-09-26T09:56:45","date_gmt":"2018-09-26T09:56:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/"},"modified":"2018-09-26T09:56:45","modified_gmt":"2018-09-26T09:56:45","slug":"hearsay-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Hearsay Exceptions"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_63 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title \" >Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Admissions_I\" title=\"Admissions I\">Admissions I<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Admissions_II\" title=\"Admissions II\">Admissions II<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Admission_of_Agents\" title=\"Admission of Agents\">Admission of Agents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Hearsay_Limits_and_Exceptions\" title=\"Hearsay; Limits and Exceptions\">Hearsay; Limits and Exceptions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Quasi-Hearsay\" title=\"Quasi-Hearsay\">Quasi-Hearsay<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Spontaneous_Statements_%E2%80%93_%E2%80%9DRes_Gestae%E2%80%9D\" title=\"Spontaneous Statements &#8211; \\&#8221;Res Gestae\\&#8221;\">Spontaneous Statements &#8211; \\&#8221;Res Gestae\\&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Spontaneity\" title=\"Spontaneity\">Spontaneity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#State_of_Mind_and_Intention\" title=\"State of Mind and Intention\">State of Mind and Intention<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Deceased_Person_Cause_of_Death\" title=\"Deceased Person Cause of Death\">Deceased Person Cause of Death<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Statement_Against_Interest\" title=\"Statement Against Interest\">Statement Against Interest<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Records\" title=\"Records\">Records<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Public_Records\" title=\"Public Records\">Public Records<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Childrens_Evidence\" title=\"Children\u2019s Evidence\">Children\u2019s Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Public_Documents\" title=\"Public Documents\">Public Documents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/hearsay-evidence\/#Reform\" title=\"Reform\">Reform<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Admissions_I\"><\/span>Admissions I<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>A major exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement made against the maker \u2019s interest is admissible, even if it is hearsay. The reason is that it is presumed that a \u00a0person will not have a motive to \u00a0make a false statement against his own personal or financial interests<\/p>\n<p>In civil cases, an admission may be made formally in the pleading themselves.\u00a0 Alternatively, it may be made in response to a notice to admit facts prior to trial.\u00a0 It may be informally agreed.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, admissions made by third parties are inadmissible as hearsay.\u00a0 However, in some cases, the words and statements of third party will bind a party to the action.\u00a0 This may happen, for example, where there is a relationship of agency, partnership or title involved.<\/p>\n<p>Admissions by an agent may be treated as the party\u2019s admission. It must be made as the time the agency was in place.\u00a0 The agent must have express or implied authority to make the admission.<\/p>\n<p>Partners commonly have authority on behalf of each other in relation to litigation.\u00a0 See the sections on partnership law.\u00a0 The admission must be made in the course of the partnership.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Admissions_II\"><\/span>Admissions II<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Admissions are allowed as exceptions to the hearsay rule. An admission is a statement made by the other party to proceedings which is adverse to and contrary to his interests.\u00a0 The exception does not apply to the statement of third parties.\u00a0 An admission contrary to one\u2019s interest is admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents. A statement contrary to interests may be proved as evidence of the truth of its content.<\/p>\n<p>The presumption is that a person will not normally make a statement contrary to his interest. A person will not, in the normal course of things fabricate a statement that is adverse to his personal or financial interests. On the contrary, such a statement viewed as especially probative.<\/p>\n<p>In the criminal context, an admission to a person in authority, such as the Gardai,. is a confession. \u00a0Confessions obtained by the Gardai are subject to certain rules designed to protect a person who may confess to something under a physical or psychological pressure. \u00a0See the separate section on criminal evidence.<\/p>\n<p>An admission may take place in some circumstances, by silence. Where a person fails to deny an assertion made by another verbally or in writing, on an occasion or in circumstances in which it would be reasonable and usual for a person to make a denial, then failure to deny, may constitute an admission. Similarly, where a person does not deny a statement on an occasion when he would be reasonably expected to deny it, there may be an inference from the silence equivalent to an admission.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Admission_of_Agents\"><\/span>Admission of Agents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Generally, admissions made by third parties are inadmissible as hearsay.\u00a0 However, in some cases, the words and statements of third party will bind a party to the action.\u00a0 This may happen, for example, where there is a relationship of agency, partnership or title involved.<\/p>\n<p>Admissions by an agent may be treated as the party\u2019s admission. It must be made at the time the agency was in place.\u00a0 The agent must have express or implied authority to make the admission.<\/p>\n<p>Partners commonly have authority on behalf of each other in relation to litigation.\u00a0 See the sections on partnership law.\u00a0 The admission must be made in the course of the partnership.<\/p>\n<p>Admissions by one joint tenant do not automatically bind his fellow joint tenant.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Hearsay_Limits_and_Exceptions\"><\/span>Hearsay; Limits and Exceptions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Hearsay evidence can cover statements, written documents, conduct and implied assertions. Some evidence, which might appear at first glance, \u00a0to be hearsay is not, in fact, hearsay because the question of its truth is not relevant. In this case, the truth of the content of the documents will not matter. \u00a0For example, letters constituting an exchange of correspondence constituting a contract are admissible as proof of their content, as the truth or falsity of the underlying offer and acceptance is irrelevant as a matter of contract law.<\/p>\n<p>There are limits on the extent to which conduct and implied assertions are subject to the hearsay exclusion.\u00a0 Conduct is less likely to be fabricated than deliberate statements.\u00a0 It is only conduct and behaviour that involves an express or implied assertion that is likely to be considered equivalent to a hearsay statement.<\/p>\n<p>The Courts have been reluctant to extend the hearsay rule too far, as otherwise evidence of intention and other matters requiring circumstantial evidence could rarely be proved.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Quasi-Hearsay\"><\/span>Quasi-Hearsay<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Statements and documents will often be allowed as evidence on the basis that they do not constitute hearsay. \u00a0Many statements and documents, particularly in a commercial context are legally significant and relevant irrespective of whether or not they are true.\u00a0 The hearsay rule does not apply in these cases because the statement is not offered as proof of its contents.<\/p>\n<p>In the context of contract and many other legal situations, the truth or otherwise of a statement are irrelevant. What matters is words spoken and written and their \u201ctruth\u201d or otherwise is irrelevant.\u00a0 A person is bound to a contract if a reasonable bystander would believe that he was assenting to the offer and agreement.\u00a0 The truth or otherwise of the offer or acceptance is irrelevant. \u00a0The statement is not hearsay.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes the fact that a statement has been, is itself the relevant question.\u00a0 In this case, it is not hearsay.\u00a0 Statements made by a person or to a person may be admitted in order to show their state of mind, information and belief.\u00a0 The fact that a particular person was told something is allowed as proof as to its effect on them and in particular how it would affect his knowledge, information and belief.\u00a0 In this case, the truth or otherwise of the statement is irrelevant.<\/p>\n<p>Statements produced by mechanical or electrical devices or machines without human intervention are generally admissible. \u00a0Statements which prove a person\\&#8217;s state of mind are admissible even though they are made out of Court.\u00a0 What a person says will often be the best available evidence of his state of mind.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Spontaneous_Statements_%E2%80%93_%E2%80%9DRes_Gestae%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>Spontaneous Statements &#8211; \\&#8221;Res Gestae\\&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Spontaneous statements which are part of the matters in dispute may be permitted, as so-called \u201cres gestae\u201d.\u00a0 In some cases, they are not true exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule as they are not admitted as proof of their content.\u00a0 They may, for example, be admitted to show a person\u2019s state of mind at the relevant time.<\/p>\n<p>The statement must be spontaneous and made by a person participating in the relevant events or observing them.\u00a0 For example, a statement made by a witness to a crime, as it happened or within moments thereafter, may be admissible as such on this ground. Over time, the requirement for spontaneity or contemporaneity has eased slightly.<\/p>\n<p>Latterly, the courts have allowed evidence of statements, provided they are very closely associated with the relevant time, place, and circumstances where they are so closely connected that they may be regarded as part of the circumstances themselves, in the same way as a piece of real evidence found at the scene and not merely a later narration.<\/p>\n<p>The statement must be such that it was made in circumstances of spontaneity or involvement in the event concerned so that the risk of concoction is small.\u00a0 If the statement may be regarded as a \u00a0true reflection of what was actually happening, it may be admitted as evidence.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast, if the statement gives an account of a past event or the speaker is disengaged from the events concerned, it is inadmissible as hearsay.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Spontaneity\"><\/span>Spontaneity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Statements made by a person which accompany a relevant act may be admissible as evidence of their truth.\u00a0 This is a further aspect of the principle that statements which are an integral part of the event itself are admissible.<\/p>\n<p>Statements made contemporaneously with a particular act or event are usually allowed. This is because the element of spontaneity means that they are unlikely to be fabricated. The exception applies where it is made without the opportunity for reflection and in the course of the event or matter in dispute.<\/p>\n<p>The statements which are an integral part of the matter or transaction which are made spontaneously and without the opportunity for reflection are presumed reliable and admitted. They are allowed even though they constitute hearsay. Such statements are often described by the Latin term \u201cres gestae\u201d. They are an inherent part of the act or event in issue.<\/p>\n<p>Spontaneous statements made by persons involved in the event are admissible as evidence of their truth.\u00a0 Such statements must be made without the opportunity for reflection.\u00a0 For example, if an incident occurs, statements which are an integral part of the incident concerned, are presumed to have greater weight because of the absence of opportunity for fabrication, reflection and consideration.<\/p>\n<p>In deciding whether that statement is sufficiently spontaneous, the Court takes account of:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the possibility of fabrication and distortion;<\/li>\n<li>whether the event is so unusual or startling that it must dominate the thoughts of the person who makes the statement;<\/li>\n<li>error, malice and other human weakness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Statements made by victims after they had been attacked naming the assailant would be generally admissible on this ground.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"State_of_Mind_and_Intention\"><\/span>State of Mind and Intention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Statements in relation to a person\\&#8217;s state of mind or emotion at the relevant time may be received as evidence of the truth of their content. The statement must relate to the state of mind of the person who makes the statement.\u00a0 It must coincide with the emotion and must state that the emotion or intention or state of mind is felt.\u00a0 On this basis, a statement that person is hungry, distressed, anxious etc. may be received as evidence of such fact.<\/p>\n<p>Statements of future intentions are permissible as evidence of intention on that date.\u00a0 For example, a statement by an accused that he intended to kill a particular person is admissible as evidence of this intention.\u00a0However self-serving statements are not allowed.<\/p>\n<p>A statement of a person\\&#8217;s physical sensations at the requisite time may be allowed as proof of the same.\u00a0 The statement must be contemporaneous. Circumstances which explain an event and accompany it may be allowed as evidence of intention.\u00a0 It is not admissible as evidence of a person\u2019s physical sensation.<\/p>\n<p>For example, market surveys have been admitted in passing off cases are admitted as evidence of the opinions and beliefs of the person who completes the survey.\u00a0 There are limits, however, to the admission of such evidence. On occasions, the courts have disapproved of the survey evidence, of the basis that it cannot be contradicted by cross-examination.\u00a0 All of the background facts, including questionnaires, answers and circumstances may be required to assess the accuracy and context of the survey evidence.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Deceased_Person_Cause_of_Death\"><\/span>Deceased Person Cause of Death<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Certain statements made by deceased persons are allowed as evidence of their truth, which would otherwise constitute hearsay. This is a pragmatic principle, based on non-availability of the maker of the statements.\u00a0 In addition, the exceptions are such that the possibility of fabrication is unlikely.<\/p>\n<p>The declaration must be spontaneous and unprompted.\u00a0 It may be written or verbal.\u00a0 It must be relevant to the cause of death.<\/p>\n<p>A declaration made by a dying person as to the cause of death is allowed in evidence.\u00a0 It must be shown that the person had no hope of recovery. In murder and manslaughter cases, a statement by the victim may be admissible on this ground. This exception applies only to the causes of death.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statement_Against_Interest\"><\/span>Statement Against Interest<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Generally, an admission is admissible, only if made by the other party to proceedings.\u00a0 A statement by a person now deceased, against his interest is admissible. \u00a0In this case, the person need not be party to the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>It is necessary to show that the deceased had actual knowledge of the matters concerned and that he knew that the statement was against his interests.\u00a0 An example may be where a person admits that he owes a particular debt<\/p>\n<p>The presumption is that a statement against a person\\&#8217;s financial or other interests will not generally be made.\u00a0 The statement must be against the interests of the maker of the statement at the relevant time.\u00a0 He must know that it is against his interest.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Records\"><\/span>Records<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>There are various other classes of statements by deceased persons which are allowed as evidence.\u00a0 These include statements as to family relationships, births, marriages, deaths, intestacies, the identity of parents, statements as to public and private rights. Entries in records, diaries and registers made by deceased persons even if made in private business records.<\/p>\n<p>Written declarations made by a person in the course of a duty, who is now deceased, are admissible.\u00a0 The information must have been recorded contemporaneously.\u00a0 The recording or statement must have been made in the course of an office or employment, \u00a0where it is the maker\u2019s duty to so record.<\/p>\n<p>Statements as to a person\\&#8217;s pedigree (i.e., family relationship) by blood relatives or spouses of blood relatives of the person whose pedigree or relationship is in dispute, are permitted.<\/p>\n<p>Declarations by persons which explain with the contents of a will are admissible.\u00a0\u00a0Where the will is lost, declarations made contemporaneously with the will or shortly before or afterwards, are allowed as secondary evidence of its contents.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Public_Records\"><\/span>Public Records<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Declarations made by a deceased person in the course of duties are admissible. This may include notes or entries in records and registers made by a public official.\u00a0 The presumption is that a person is unlikely to fabricate a note or declaration made in the course of the duty.<\/p>\n<p>Statements in public record and documents may be admissible as evidence of their truth, by way of an exception to the rules.\u00a0 The document must be made under a duty to inquire into the relevant information.\u00a0 It must concern a public matter. The document or records must be intended for public inspection.<\/p>\n<p>Statements in public documents may be generally proved by the production of a certified copy.\u00a0 Where a public officer makes records in the course of his duty a \u00a0certified copy is admissible as sufficient evidence. In many cases,\u00a0 statutes provide that a certified copy in a certain form is admissible as proof of its contents.<\/p>\n<p>Statements in works of reference and authorities on a\u00a0particular subject are admissible as evidence of the truth of their content.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Childrens_Evidence\"><\/span>Children\u2019s Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Statements made by children in civil proceedings which would otherwise be hearsay may be permitted if the child is unable to give evidence by reason of age or where the giving of evidence would not be in the interests of the child\\&#8217;s welfare.\u00a0 The court may exclude evidence if it is not in the interests of justice to admit it.<\/p>\n<p>There are certain considerations which must be taken account on.\u00a0 In particular, any resultant unfairness to the parties must be considered.\u00a0 Notice must be given before the power to receive such evidence may be invoked.\u00a0 The notice must include particulars of the evidence as is reasonable and practicable.<\/p>\n<p>The court must consider the reliability of the statements with reference to the motivations of the children to conceal and misrepresent, contemporaneously, whether multiple hearsay is involved and the possibility of collaboration.\u00a0 A child\\&#8217;s unsworn statement may be allowed in evidence on the above basis.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Public_Documents\"><\/span>Public Documents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>.Document and entries made by persons under a duty (e.g. public official) to compile records are admissible. The exceptions required that the person (public or private) has a duty to keep a particular log or record. The person making the declaration must have had a duty to ascertain the facts and record them. He must have had personal knowledge of the matter concerned at the time the record is made.<\/p>\n<p>A statement in public documents and records is admissible. Certain statements in bank records are deemed admissible by statute . in a statement in many public records are deemed admissible by legislation .<\/p>\n<p>A statement in authoritive textbooks may be received. Permission of the court is required to read these as evidence.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reform\"><\/span>Reform<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In other jurisdictions, in particular, Northern Ireland, England and Wales the hearsay rule has been largely abolished.\u00a0 Subject to certain notices and protections, hearsay is generally admissible in civil\u00a0cases Northern Ireland and England and Wales.<\/p>\n<p>In these jurisdictions, the long standing criticism that hearsay evidence should not be automatically excluded, even if it is logically relevant and probative of the matters in dispute, has been accepted.\u00a0 The Irish Law Reform Commission has recommended that the hearsay evidence be reformed.<\/p>\n<p>The Law Reform Commission report on hearsay recommend that the rule be abolished but that judges have a discretion to exclude statements made other than in Court.\u00a0 As in Northern Ireland, England and Wales, it was proposed that the law would be reformed to provide notices of the proposal to offer hearsay evidence.<\/p>\n<!--themify_builder_content-->\n<div id=\"themify_builder_content-4524\" data-postid=\"4524\" class=\"themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-4524 themify_builder tf_clear\">\n    <\/div>\n<!--\/themify_builder_content-->\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Admissions I A major exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement made against the maker \u2019s interest is admissible, even if it is hearsay. The reason is that it is presumed that a \u00a0person will not have a motive to \u00a0make a false statement against his own personal or financial interests In civil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[317],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4524"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}