During a corporate fraud investigation, an attorney seeks to admit an email as evidence in court. The email states: 'I just received a call from Jamie, who told me that he overheard the CFO say the quarterly financial reports were altered to exaggerate profits.' The opposing counsel objects, arguing that the email constitutes inadmissible hearsay. How should the court rule on the objection?
The court should sustain the objection unless each layer of hearsay meets an exception or exclusion under the hearsay rule.
The court should overrule the objection because the email itself is a business record and is admissible as presented.
The court should sustain the objection because the email fails to meet the requirements for admissibility under the hearsay rule.
The court should overrule the objection because the declarant's email is a present sense impression.
The email contains multiple layers of hearsay: (1) the declarant who is reporting what Jamie said and (2) Jamie’s statement about what he overheard the CFO say. For the email to be admissible, each layer of hearsay must independently qualify under a hearsay exception or exclusion. For example, the CFO's statement could qualify as a party-opponent statement, while Jamie's statement would require a separate exception to satisfy the rules. Without addressing both layers, the email is inadmissible. This rules out options suggesting inherent admissibility or inadmissibility without analysis, as well as the present sense impression exception, which does not apply here.
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 are the different layers of hearsay in this email?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some common exceptions to the hearsay rule?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How do courts typically evaluate hearsay objections?