During a negligence trial, a bystander is called to testify about a car accident they claim to have witnessed. On the stand, they admit that they only heard the crash from inside a nearby store and could not see the scene until after it had occurred. The opposing attorney objects, stating that the testimony should be excluded. What is the best basis for sustaining this objection?
The witness's observations occurred after the event took place.
The witness's testimony is hearsay.
The witness lacks personal knowledge of the accident.
The requirement of personal knowledge under the rules of evidence mandates that a witness may testify only about matters they have directly perceived through their senses. Since the bystander did not see the crash, they lack the firsthand knowledge required to testify about the event. Conversely, their subsequent observations might be admissible, but observations made after the event do not provide the necessary basis for a firsthand account of the crash itself. Speculation, inference, or secondhand accounts violate this rule. Other answers, such as hearsay and relevance, are incorrect because the question pertains to the bystander’s ability to testify based on firsthand perception rather than statements made by others or the overarching relevance of their testimony.
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 legal testimony?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules of evidence regarding hearsay in a trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can observations made after an event still be admissible in court?