The Co-Conspirator's Exception to the Hearsay Rule

[@kevinc4849]

@Professor Sankoff how would all of this change if the allegations came from Johnny himself, rather than Bob? What if Johnny admits to police that he and Sheri robbed the bank, but then invokes his right against self-incrimination at Sheri's trial, meaning he can't be cross-examined? Would Johnny's prior statement then be admissible against Sheri?

[@withafewexceptions5156]

A co-conspirator's statement -- if admissible -- does not come in under a hearsay exception (that is, under either rule 803 or 804). It is non-hearsay. It is NOT admissible as an exception. Statements that come in under an exception are in fact hearsay, but come in because of some indicia of reliability and/or trustworthiness. A co-conspirator's statement -- like the statement of party offered by the party's opponent - is flat-out not hearsay.

[@professorsankoff7683]

That's a definitional idea propounded by the US rules. In Canada, where this video is made, they are hearsay, but come in under an exception. Conceptually, it seems to me to make no real difference, and both ways have flaws.

[@HACKS886]

@@professorsankoff7683 hey can you give me a con about hearsay rule? For school