Peter Robinson writes:
“[I]t’s one thing for vague rumors to circulate, another
for the L. A. Times to publish dates, descriptions, and, in several
cases, the names of victims. What was once hearsay is now
fact.”
No, what was once hearsay, is still hearsay–though some of which at
least has now been admitted to be true by Arnold. A statement can be
perfectly true and still be hearsay. Hearsay is an ‘out of court
statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.’ All these
statements, some of which are unattributed, are still out of court
(though now on the record) and even if you shift the hearsay concept to
newspapers rather than courts, it is still not testimony under oath and
subject to cross examination (a main function of having a hearsay rule).
Sorry Peter, its just my former prosecutor, and evidence law professor,
hormones kicking in. Besides, impressionable law students may be
reading the Corner.