During a civil trial, a plaintiff calls a witness to testify about a car accident. The witness claims that they know what happened because they overheard a conversation between two bystanders who were describing the accident shortly after it occurred. The defense objects, arguing that the witness lacks the necessary qualifications to testify about the accident. Should the witness's testimony be admitted?
Yes, because the witness overheard the conversation shortly after the accident took place.
No, because the witness did not observe the car accident directly.
Yes, because hearsay rules are inapplicable when the testimony involves third-party statements.
No, because the witness's testimony about the conversation requires expert qualifications.
The correct answer explains that the witness's testimony cannot be admitted because their knowledge is not based on personal observation—it is based on what they overheard from others. The requirement of personal knowledge mandates that a witness must have directly perceived the event they are testifying about. The incorrect answers fail to acknowledge this requirement or misapply the relevant rule.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'personal knowledge' mean in the context of witness testimony?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is hearsay and why is it generally inadmissible in court?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of a witness overhearing a conversation for their testimony?