Uspca

Unregistered · 03-01-2017, 12:55 PM

"Well of course you're not a witness if you weren't there. Is that how you handle your calls?"

Yes that is how everyone should handle their calls. If the person says that they were told something and did not actually witness the crime then it is hearsay. Unless the suspect tells you something then it is not evidence to a crime.

Example- You respond to a signal 20 and the husband has no injuries and claims he was smacked in the face right before you arrived. The wife says nothing happened. The husbands drinking buddy arrives and says that she did hit the husband, but he did not witness it. What do you do?

Unregistered · 03-01-2017, 05:08 PM

The drinking buddy was NOT witness, it was only hearsay. So forget he even exists. So now all you have is a he said/she said. No evidence to support his claim, she denies it. Cant prove or disprove that a crime was committed. Case placed inactive. Unfounded if its proven that a crime was, in fact, NOT committed. Highly unlikely to close a case exceptional on a DV case unless there was evidence of a crime and the reporting officer was unable to determine pimary aggressor.

**MOD 673** · 03-02-2017, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If the person says that they were told something and did not actually witness the crime then it is hearsay.

That is not hearsay.

Hearsay "is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." We get that from the 6^th Amendment which effectively is "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [ … ] to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” It is an out-of-court statement introduced (as evidence) to prove the truth of the matter. So if someone was told something and did not witness it, the statement itself is not yet “hearsay” until it is attempted to be produced in court as “hearsay evidence.” There is no such thing as hearsay at the investigative level. I’m explaining that to you because as an officer, you should not dismiss such statements during an investigation as it may lead to discovering further probable cause elements. I hope you wouldn’t “not take a statement” or not write down what the person said (whether they were there or not) just because you think it may EVENTUALLY be inadmissible as hearsay evidence at trial. There is a long list of exceptions regarding hearsay evidence in the Federal Rule.

Please read this article:

http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2014/0...e-right-wrong/

MOD 673

Unregistered · 03-02-2017, 03:19 AM

MOD thanks for enlightening us all. I would still not put much weight in the statement from someone who didn't witness the incident, like the one given above. The person shows up after the event and did not witness the event between two people who were alone. It boils down to he said she said, with no physical evidence to support a crime. I believe hearsay was used generically to describe a third parties attempt to interject themselves into the incident. You can now go back to your superiority complex. These were taken from your article. In the above given incident the drinking buddy wasn't a credible witness.

"As for the “lay” definition of “hearsay,” according to the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, hearsay is “something heard from another person: something that you have been told.” *The prolonged myth is that any hearsay statement or evidence is inherently unreliable because someone did not learn the information first-hand."

'In the example above, if the investigator determines Wally is a credible witness, they can surmise something may have happened to Karen by her boss Bill despite the fact that Wally did not witness anything first-hand.* For example, even if someone was in the room when Karen’s boss Bill gave her the neck rub, this does not mean they saw Karen’s reaction or heard any comments made by Bill.* On the other hand, if Wally is a good friend of Karen, he might notice the cadence of her speech when she relayed her story, or picked up on more details and nuances because of their friendship, provide insights into her credibility, and his concern and possibly his anger at what his friend had experienced "-

Unregistered · 03-02-2017, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by MOD 673

That is not hearsay.

Hearsay "is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." We get that from the 6^th Amendment which effectively is "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [ … ] to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” It is an out-of-court statement introduced (as evidence) to prove the truth of the matter. So if someone was told something and did not witness it, the statement itself is not yet “hearsay” until it is attempted to be produced in court as “hearsay evidence.” There is no such thing as hearsay at the investigative level. I’m explaining that to you because as an officer, you should not dismiss such statements during an investigation as it may lead to discovering further probable cause elements. I hope you wouldn’t “not take a statement” or not write down what the person said (whether they were there or not) just because you think it may EVENTUALLY be inadmissible as hearsay evidence at trial. There is a long list of exceptions regarding hearsay evidence in the Federal Rule.

Please read this article:

http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2014/0...e-right-wrong/

MOD 673

Ok I agree to an extent..but im simpler terms we are NOT at the trial phase. I agree: get a sworn, written statement but, for the purposes of determining probable cause, that statement means nothing. You cannot establish p.c. against "her" all because the alleged victim told his drinking buddy that she hit him but the drinking buddy. I don't think you need a judge to make that determination. In fact take it to the state attorney and they will probably send a memo to Major W that you need to take a legal class because you are a morom. It IS hearsay enough to say he is not only a non- credible witness, but he's not a witness period.

Perhaps if you haven't had your nose up Otis' butt and now Bob you would have been doing real law enforcement and not the shit you do from a cubicle Scott.

Unregistered · 03-02-2017, 04:50 AM

I think Mod actually got it right for once. It doesn't matter tho. If MG (victim) is not cooperating with SAO, it will go no where & get dropped.

Let's all just turn our heads while the whole thing gets swept under the rug. Y'all just save this post in case you ever find yourself a suspect in a DV case against your significant other or if you get caught having sexual relations with someone other than your significant other. Sorry MG & Mitch. Hate it for y'all & your families. I don't know Mitch's wife or him but I do know TG & MG. If that's how the SO chooses to represent itself by condoning that behavior, then so be it.