The driving is not the evidence, though. The video is the evidence. What makes it hearsay is that the “statement” (the video) was made out of court, and that it is being used to prove that the thing it shows actually happened. So you can’t cross examine it or impeach it directly. It’s admissible under an exception, its reliability. Which is what you are saying, and is what I said before. But it is, technically, hearsay. It’s weird. The rules of evidence are weird. And complicated. And one of the most complicated aspects of law, at least in the US. Evidence is one of those areas people dread studying for for the bar exam. There are things that are technically hearsay that the law says aren’t hearsay. And then there are things that aren’t technically hearsay that the law says are. And then there are things admissible under an exception even though they are hearsay. And each of these categories throws the evidence into a different legal status. If you told someone to come up with a bunch of rules of evidence, and to make them as complicated and as stupid as possible, you wouldn’t come up with something as stupid and complicated as what we actually have. Anyway, bottom line…video and audio evidence are in the category of things that are technically hearsay but that the law treats them as if they aren’t. But that may have to change soon, in my opinion.
11 Likes
