Evidence and so on

This is the home stretch everyone! I will be uploading my hearsay flow chart today but be forewarned, I do not delve into “non-hearsay exemptions,” for spacial concerns as well as the confusing seemingly interchangeable terminology, which I think is more a result of your prep company/evidence lecturer preference, outline or material-writer preference, and law school professor preference. For example, I learned exemptions, exclusions, and exceptions in law school, but my bar prep company uses the terms in a different way.  In bar prep, exclusions and exceptions seem synonymous and are used to describe both exceptions requiring unavailability and where unavailability is immaterial; further, while my bar prep company refers to rule 801(d) exceptions as “non-hearsay exclusions,” while my 2014 copy of the FRE and some cursory research reveals the rule itself refers to them as exclusions and “Statements That Are Not Hearsay.” At the same time, a contributor and friend of mine using a different company and a secondary resource/study system stated that they (still on rule 801) used the terms non-hearsay and exemptions. I have therefore used both “not hearsay exclusions,” and “non-hearsay exemptions,” where i touch on 801. Simply bear in mind that there are uses or purposes for certain non-hearsay purposes (i.e. not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted) such as effect on the listener, a statement offered to show the declarants mental state or state of mind, and/or impeachment purposes. Remember, this is intended to help you so if it causes confusion due to terminology ignore it or perhaps print it out and integrate your preferred terminology. If you have questions or feel there are errors, as always feel free to contact me. Last note: we do not need to know number rules for the Bar, as I understand, but I incorporated rule numbers where applicable for those of you who do prefer to go by rule number.

Evidence and so on

This is the home stretch everyone! I will be uploading my hearsay flow chart today but be forewarned, I do not delve into “non-hearsay exemptions,” for spacial concerns as well as the confusing seemingly interchangeable terminology, which I think is more a result of your prep company/evidence lecturer preference, outline or material-writer preference, and law school professor preference. For example, I learned exemptions, exclusions, and exceptions in law school, but my bar prep company uses the terms in a different way.  In bar prep, exclusions and exceptions seem synonymous and are used to describe both exceptions requiring unavailability and where unavailability is immaterial; further, while my bar prep company refers to rule 801(d) exceptions as “non-hearsay exclusions,” while my 2014 copy of the FRE and some cursory research reveals the rule itself refers to them as exclusions and “Statements That Are Not Hearsay.” At the same time, a contributor and friend of mine using a different company and a secondary resource/study system stated that they (still on rule 801) used the terms non-hearsay and exemptions. I have therefore used both “not hearsay exclusions,” and “non-hearsay exemptions,” where i touch on 801. Simply bear in mind that there are uses or purposes for certain non-hearsay purposes (i.e. not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted) such as effect on the listener, a statement offered to show the declarants mental state or state of mind, and/or impeachment purposes, etc. Remember, this is intended to help you so if it causes confusion due to terminology ignore it or perhaps print it out and integrate your preferred terminology. If you have questions or feel there are errors, as always feel free to contact me. Last note: we do not need to know number rules for the Bar, as I understand, but I incorporated rule numbers where applicable for those of you who do prefer to go by rule number.