Revenge. jane, a first year law student, while walking to school in inclement weather, accidentally slipped on ice knocking down greg, another first year law student, breaking his glasses. he was very angry with jane and let the air out of one of her car tires. greg also decided to sue jane for negligence, claiming as damages $300 for his broken glasses. he decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a lawyer. greg sued jane in state court. jane, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against greg for letting the air out of her tire. at trial in state court, jane told the judge that a friend, susie told her that she saw greg let the air out of jane's tire. the judge disallowed jane's testimony on that issue. susie, however, who was in the courtroom also came and testified to that effect. the state court judge ruled in favor of susie. greg said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. jane and greg live in different states when not attending school. after trial, jane reported greg's actions in letting the air out of her tire to the police who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against greg. was the judge correct in disallowing the testimony of jane regarding what susie had told her?

The answer is yes; the judge was correct in disallowing Jane’s testimony based on the following:

Trial justice bases its findings on two things, proof/evidence and witnesses or testimonial proof. Additionally, Jane, who is one of the parts involved, cannot also be her own witness, she is a plaintiff. When Jane states that Susie told her she had witnessed Greg letting the air out of her car tires she is not providing material or testimonial proof. Her words are just hearsay and have no legal value.

When Susie comes forward as a direct witness to Greg’s actions, she has allegedly seen the action herself, and her words do not legally constitute hearsay but actual testimony with legal value and consequences.

Yes, the Judge was correct for disallowing the testimony of Jane

The judge disallowed Jane’s testimony because she relied on what her friend told her. In other words, she was unable to present evidence to the court. She had no proof or evidence to back her claim.

Also, Jane was the person that initiates a lawsuit before the court, which means that she cannot present herself as a witness.

Jane told the judge that Susie informed her that she saw Greg deflating her car tires. So, there was no burden of proof in her case before the court.

The court can’t admit her words as evidence because it was just mere hearsay that has no basis in law.

Susie's evidence was admitted because she witnessed Greg’s action, therefore she has evidence to prove that Greg did let the air out of Susie’s tires.

Hearsay in law is not admissible as evidence by the court. If you are giving evidence in the court, you cannot use what someone told you as evidence. It can only become a piece of evidence if the person that witnessed it comes forward and tells the court themselves.

Thus, the judge was correct for disallowing the testimony of Jane .

LEARN MORE:

KEYWORDS:

nothing

hope this !