In a fraud case, the prosecution calls a witness to testify that they heard the defendant admit to the fraudulent activity during a private conversation. However, the witness was present in the room but did not hear any conversation between the defendant and the victim. Based on the requirement of personal knowledge, which statement is correct regarding the witness's testimony?
The witness's testimony is admissible based on their ability to infer what was said from reactions.
The witness's testimony is inadmissible as they did not hear the defendant admit to the fraudulent activity.
The witness's testimony is admissible due to their presence in the same room during the conversation.
The witness's testimony is admissible contingent upon corroboration by other evidence.
The witness's testimony is inadmissible because they did not hear the defendant admit to the fraudulent activity. Personal knowledge requires that the witness has direct experience or observation of the fact they are testifying about. Being present in the room without actually hearing the conversation does not fulfill this requirement. Additionally, inferring what was said from reactions or relying on corroboration does not establish the necessary personal knowledge.
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 a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications if a witness does not have personal knowledge?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between hearsay and direct evidence?