Since it is an important topic, I am starting a separate discussion thread on it.

Here's an explanation article from Wikipedia about "hearsay" in US legal system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

I've read it, but it is clear as mud to me.  

One thing appears to be true from reading it: if someone made an out-of-court statement in the past, that statement can be used against himself in court later on for certain purpose.

Yes, if you're the defendant in a criminal prosecution, and you've made any statement to anyone, it's not considered hearsay under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2). Under California Evidence Code section 1220, it's admissible hearsay. This is different from declaration against interest which requires that the declarant be unavailable. However, to present it an admission by a party opponent, you would need to authenticate it, meaning that you need to actually prove it was the defendant who said it. However, authentication is a pretty low standard because ultimately it is up to the jury to decide if the writing is what it purports to be, so judges admit it to let them to decide. Think about everything that would identify you as someone on TER. Do you give your handle out to people so they know who you are? Do you have cookies on your computer that keep you logged on in TER? Does your TER handle resemble any other online handle that you use?

Particularly damnable in California is what is formerly Article I, section (d) of the California Constitution, the Truth-in-Evidence provision, passed as part of Prop 8 in 1982. Prop 9 changed it to Art. I, sec. (f)(2). Basically, it says all relevant evidence comes in unless it's part of one of the few exceptions. Hearsay is one of the exceptions, but admission of a party opponent isn't hearsay. I'm sure that a prosecutor would argue it's relevant.

Normally, I would do a Crawford Confrontation Clause analysis, but I'm pretty certain TER reviews are non-testimonial.

For it to be even POSSIBLY admissable, they have to be able to prove YOU said/typed it.  And the fact that it came from some internet site you pay to access or even from your personal computer is NOT evidence that YOU were the one on the keyboard.  
My .02 and, like Mr. Fischer, not a lawyer

just curious....what if a investigative news program reported that you were a sex worker.  No criminal record...just allegations made by the news program.  Could that be admissible in court to try to prove you were earning money for sex???

You're confusing ultimate issues with preliminary issues. Ultimate issues are decided by a jury and must be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Preliminary issues, such as admissibility, are decided by a judge and have a low threshold. It is ultimately up to the jury to decide if the evidence is what it purports to be. However, if it's not admitted, they can't decide that. Attacks on whether evidence is what it purports to be go toward its weight and credibility, not toward admissibility. You also seem to think that only direct evidence can be used. Circumstantial evidence is certainly valid and a person may be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

You're assuming an impossible standard of verification of identity that would make it impossible for the legal system to operate. For example, in many domestic violence cases, people send harassing communications. Whether it be text messages, e-mail, handwritten letters, it is easy to have circumstantial evidence about who wrote it and sent it, even though potentially any one could have access to the pen and paper, cell phone, or computer. The identity of who sent the communications is a critical issue, because that's usually a violation of a restraining order and a crime in itself. Nonetheless, such communications often are admitted in court. Plenty of circumstantial evidence to prove the sender. You would require an eyewitness to the communications being written.

Consider this in a non-criminal context of Company A sending Company B a purchase order. Company B fulfills it but then Company A sends it never sent it and that the purchase order was a forgery. So Company B sues. You seem to think that the purchase order itself would not be admissible unless someone actually saw Company A write out the purchase order and testifies about it.

Perhaps you want a more concrete example. Lori Drew was the infamous mother who wrote the fake messages to Megan Meier on Myspace which ultimately caused her suicide. A jury ultimately found her guilty of computer fraud by misrepresenting her identity by creating the fake account. The defense made the same argument that there was no proof that she wrote the messages or even made that account. The account and its messages were in evidence.

"...the fact that it came from some internet site you pay to access or even from your personal computer is NOT evidence that YOU were the one on the keyboard."

Absolutely wrong.  It is not PROOF that you were the one who typed it, but it is EVIDENCE that you were.  You seem to think nothing is evidence of a purported fact unless it proves that fact with absolute certainty, but that is not correct.  Anything that tends to show whether the purported fact is true (or false) is evidence of its truth (or falsity).

If you have a computer at home and you're the only one who uses it, evidence that a message was sent from that computer is very strong evidence that you sent it.  If other people occasionally use it, the evidence is weaker but it is still evidence.  

Now suppose there is additional evidence that your computer visits TER three or four times per week.  Suppose there is also evidence that right before, right after and/or while it is visiting TER, it is also logged into your personal bank account, your personal Hotmail account, etc.  That's pretty damning evidence.

Evidence law is not an easy thing to grasp.  It takes law students an entire semester to learn the basics, and most of them already have at least a year of law school under their belts when they start the class.  Laypeople who think tthey completely understand the rules of evidence without having studies them intensely are wrong.  People who base their conduct on guidance from such laypeople are asking for trouble.

I think you seriously overestimate your own understanding of evidence law.

The first problem with your analysis is that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply only in federal courts.  The states each have their own rules, and those rules are often substantially different from the federal rules.  Since most prostitution-related crimes are governed by state law and tried in state courts, the federal rules seldom apply in prostitution cases.

But even where those rules do apply, they don't work the way you say they do.  For example:


1.  "...if you're the defendant in a criminal prosecution, and you've made any statement to anyone, it's not considered hearsay under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2)."

Wrong.  That rule applies only to admissions, not to all statements.  Since most statements are not admissions, your claim that the rule applies to "any statement to anyone" is incorrect.


2.  "This is different from declaration against interest which requires that the declarant be unavailable."

That is only true when the declarant is not a party, or at least not the party against whom the statement is offered.  If the declarant is a criminal defendant and the declaration is offered against him by the prosecution, then it comes in as an admission of a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2).  (Because a "declaration against interest" is necessarily an admission, it will get in despite the point I made in the prior paragraph.)


3.   "Particularly damnable in California is what is formerly Article I, section (d) of the California Constitution, the Truth-in-Evidence provision, passed as part of Prop 8 in 1982. Prop 9 changed it to Art. I, sec. (f)(2). Basically, it says all relevant evidence comes in unless it's part of one of the few exceptions. Hearsay is one of the exceptions, but admission of a party opponent isn't hearsay."

Where to begin?  Admission of a party opponent isn't heasay under federal law, but it is under California law and that's the law you're talking about.  It happens to fall within one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule, but that doesn't mean admissions are not hearsay.  It means that they are admissible DESPITE being hearsay.

Also, California law does not say that all relevant evidence comes in.  Article I, Section 28(f)(2) of the California Constitution - the section which you cite but which you mistakenly call "sec. (f)(2)") - says that "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE...relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding".  There are lots of statutes that exclude relevant evidence.  The easiest example to point to is hearsay.  Much hearsay evidence is relevant, but much of it is excluded by Evidence Code section 1200.  There are other statutes which exclude relevant evidence, the most noteworthy of which is Evidence Code section 352 which excludes evidence deemed more prejudicial than probative.

I could go on, but I don't have the time.

The reporter's conclusion would not be admissible.  The report itself would almost certainly be inadmissible as well.  But the evidence upon which the reporter's conclusion was based might be admissible, depending upon what it is.

Theoretically, a review could be used against the reviewer if there is some other evidence beyond the review that supports the charge.  An example would be a cooperating witness (provider).

This is reprinted from my response to sidone below.

The concern that I see in the posts, however, is whether LE will take our reviews and start bringing charges against us.  This instant post by sidone went to the heart of the difference between admissions related statements and regular hearsay evidence (at least in Massachusetts, where we don't have rules of evidence, but rather Principles of Evidence developed by case law, that's how we tend to distinguish the types of statements).

The prosecution needs more than our reviews.  If the review is the only basis for the charge, I believe that the case will ultimately end up dismissed at the Probable Cause stage in those jurisdictions that still have formal PC hearings, or at the Motions stage through a motion to suppress.

I actually disagree with sidone about whether the reviews would survive a motion to suppress if offered as regular hearsay corroboration evidence in cases where the prosecution has something else to support the charges; but that is the beauty of our system anyway - vigorous disagreement.  I think that it would be a jurisdictional determinative outcome at best because every judge makes evidence decisions in their own way and Misdemeanors rarely get appealed by either side, if ever.

In all practicality, for your reviews to be used against you in a case (assuming that there is a cooperating witness against you):

1) The local prosecutor would have to determine the real name of the reviewer through judicial access of the TER databases by convincing a judge to issue either a search warrant, summons, or subpoena and then convince the Foreign nation in which the databases are kept to execute said court order;

2) Once the suspect is identified, (and assuming that they got ALL of the database records) the local prosecutor would then have to convince a judge to issue a search warrant on the suspect's personal computer to establish the corroborating evidence that sidone was talking about in laying the foundation;

3) The local prosecutor would then have to establish at the motion to suppress the validity of the hearsay, which means that it fits into one of the exceptions.  If the exception is a statement of the Defendant against his interest (the review), it would have to be established further that it is a statement made by him.  

Usually, that is done through the person to whom the statement is made.  In the case of written statements, like the review, the credibility of the writing would have to be established on a second level through some demonstration that the actual publication (term used as meaning the process of writing and communicating it from the declarant to the audience) of the statement was inherently credible.  Similar to the official records or business records exception to hearsay. BTW, this is where I think the admissibility would fail and where I disagree with sidone.  

This would require the keeper of the records from TER to appear at the motion to suppress and be subject to cross examination as to the credibility of the records.  At this point, the arguments regarding the loss of control of the review after submission and prior to publication would come in.

4) If all of the is evidence somehow survives a motion to suppress, then the whole thing would then have to be presented to the jury, including all of the disclaimers, TER false review history, and process of writing the review because a written statement cannot come in out of context.  I also disagree that the burden of proof shifts here, because it is up to the prosecution to lay the foundation.

All of the above has to happen in the context of a MISDEMEANOR Charge.  This is really the key element here.  Would your local jurisdiction put the time, expense, and effort into an enterprise that has more of a chance of failing than succeeding (Small Town, USA will play hell getting the warrant or subpoena executed overseas)?

IMHO, no.

I used the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code because it's what I'm familiar with. I should have disclaimed that it only applied to federal courts and California courts. However, I think the Federal Rules of Evidence are relevant since many states, I think about 40, adopted substantially similar language as their own evidence statutes. The exceptions are California, Connecticut, DC, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Virginia.

1. "That rule applies only to admissions, not to all statements.  Since most statements are not admissions, your claim that the rule applies to "any statement to anyone" is incorrect."

From FRE 801(d)(2): "The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement in either an individual or representative capacity." FRE801(a) says a statement is an oral or written assertion.

EC1220 says "Evidence of a a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an action to which he is a party." EC225 says "statements means oral or written verbal expression or nonverbal conduct intended by him as a substitute for oral or written verbal expression."

Both statutes say statement. They don't say admission. People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016 said that even though admission is in the title of EC1220, it doesn't mean anything. "The hearsay rule does not compel exclusion of any statement offered against a party declarant whether or not it can be described as an admission." I'm entirely guessing but I assume there is a federal case that says the same thing about FRE801(d)(2).

2. "That is only true when the declarant is not a party, or at least not the party against whom the statement is offered.  If the declarant is a criminal defendant and the declaration is offered against him by the prosecution, then it comes in as an admission of a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2).  (Because a "declaration against interest" is necessarily an admission, it will get in despite the point I made in the prior paragraph.)"

The point is that declaration against interest and admission by a party opponent are two different things. Often the same statement may be admitted under either exception, but nonetheless they are separate and distinct exceptions. I only brought it up, because in a previous post, you referred to a review being used against a reviewer as a declaration against interest. It probably would more likely come in as an admission of a party opponent.

Declaration against interest requires unavailability. A defendant may be unavailable because he claims his privilege against self-incrimination, but it's possible that a defendant does not and is therefore available. It also requires the statement to be against financial or penal interest. Admission of a party opponent does not require unavailability. It does not require the statement to be against financial or penal interest. Party opponent admissions could be self-serving. Or they could be neutral.

For example, a man sends an e-mail to an agency saying, "I like women with big breasts." He is on a date with a woman with such features. The prosecution wants to use such statement to prove that the agency provided said woman to him specifically based on his request. Is it a declaration against interest? No. Could it be admitted as a party admission? Yes.

3."Where to begin?  Admission of a party opponent isn't heasay under federal law, but it is under California law and that's the law you're talking about.  It happens to fall within one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule, but that doesn't mean admissions are not hearsay.  It means that they are admissible DESPITE being hearsay."

Yes, I will admit I was being sloppy and hadn't thought out what I was writing. For some reason, the number 28 was slipping from my mind. I was also mangling not hearsay, hearsay exception, and hearsay exemptions. I think I was trying to say that the California Constitution favors relevant evidence coming in and that a review would be considered relevant evidence and hearsay exception would not bar it.

I simply love attorneys!

Most hate attorneys when they should love them!

Unless they can prove you were the one at your computer it cant be used in a court room even if it came from your computer and they prove as much.

I have no law degree but have been in a court room on such a charge, kinda! It involved a domestic issue and not a provider issue. (Husband and wife kinda thing, when the wife was trying to fuck the husband over for money reasons)

In this day and age too many people can steal your wireless internet connection to have a chance of proving you were the one typing on your keyboard and to confirm it was you even if you belong to a pay site.

(Everyone should use AOL even though the service sux to cover your tracks!)

Not to mention the typical DA is not going to pay someone from an internet provider to appear in a court room and most internet providers will sue to not have to appear as their income is the people that pay them to use their service and helping prosecute them isn't really profitable to them.

They are in business to make money not to help a DA in a case they could care less about.

Unless of course you have a camera in your home they currently have zero chance or winning such a case if you have an attorney and not just a law student. If a judge allows it a good attorney will still win on appeal.

I don't know the law but I do know what I have lived through and witnessed.

My response after reading the scholarly yet opaque (to me anyways) posts above is:  No time soon.

For starters, my palms are too small to copy all that on them.

Now, if it's all the same to all of you, I'm going back to my light reading of Network Circuit Theory followed by a little nightcap of Spinoza.

(still not a lawyer)

You make some good points, but you are also make some mistakes that are worth correcting.

1.  "In this day and age too many people can steal your wireless internet connection to have a chance of proving you were the one typing on your keyboard and to confirm it was you even if you belong to a pay site."

Most computers don't have wireless connections. Your theory doesn't apply to them.

A bigger problem with your argument is that prosecutors have a lot more evidence at their disposal than the one isolated incident you describe.  They can subpoena the records of your ISP to see what sites your computer visits.  A single visit to a given site might be hard to pin on the owner, but a pattern would be pretty easy.  The authorities can also seize your computer and examine the hard drive.  This wil show not only what sites you visit, but also what emails you have sent or received.  If you use Yahoo or some other web-based email, the search will reveal your address.  The authorities can then subpoena the records of your correspondence.  


2.  "the typical DA is not going to pay someone from an internet provider to appear in a court room"

The D.A. doesn't have to pay the wages or salary of a witness who shows up as part of his or her job.  Since the witness is on duty, the emplpoyer is paying.  Prosecutors have to pay the statutory witness fees and travel costs, but that's no different from what they have to do for every other witness.  Since the D.A. doesn't have to bear this expense, the expense is not a deterrent.


3.  "most internet providers will sue to not have to appear as their income is the people that pay them to use their service and helping prosecute them isn't really profitable to them.  They are in business to make money not to help a DA in a case they could care less about."

Wrong again.  Most businesses obey valid subpoenas, period.  Unless the subpoena is defective, there would be no basis on which the company could challenge it anyway.  ("We'd rather not be bothered" isn't a valid argument.)  Large businesses receive subpoenas all the time and comply with them routinely, regardless of whether they care who wins the case.  

Large ISPs like AOL, Earthlink, Verizon, etc. have entire departments dedicated to processing and complying with subpoenas.  Showing up in court is part of their job, and the companies pay the wages or salary of an employee who shows up in court and/or at deposition pursuant to one of these subpoenas.  That's why the D.A. doesn't have to pay them.  

Doing this may not be "profitable", but it is a necessary cost of doing business.  Meeting legal requirements usually costs money instead of bringing it in.  That does not mean companies will simply blow off the requirement.


4.  "Unless of course you have a camera in your home they currently have zero chance or winning such a case if you have an attorney and not just a law student. If a judge allows it a good attorney will still win on appeal."

If you believe this you are delusional.  People get convicted all the time of crimes they committed when no one was watching.  There are lots of other ways to prove a case.  I outlined some of them in this post.  Having a good lawyer can only do so much for you if you're guilty and if the D.A. can prove it.  As for getting a conviction reversed on appeal, you can pretty much forget about it.  Appeals only work when the trial judge made a mistake.  Decisions by a judge or jury about the strength or weakness of evidence are almost never reversed on appeal, since the appellate court will not re-weigh the evidence.


5.  "I don't know the law but I do know what I have lived through and witnessed."

I agree with the first part.

Seriously, though, people who think they have learned a lot about the law usually misunderstand points that they think they have down cold.  Vixenclub's post is a good example of this.


As I have explained in other posts, I'm only saying how the law works.  I'm not saying prosecutors will actually do these things in any given case, especially for a routine misdemeanor.  But a lot of TER users who don't understand the law post here and claim that they do.  Other users who act based upon that guidance could find themselves in real trouble.

"1. '...if you're the defendant in a criminal prosecution, and you've made any statement to anyone, it's not considered hearsay under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2).'

Wrong.  That rule applies only to admissions, not to all statements.  Since most statements are not admissions, your claim that the rule applies to "any statement to anyone" is incorrect."

        I have to agree with Advocatus on this one.


         As I read the rule, all “statements” made by a criminal defendant are in fact  “admissions” under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). The word “statement” as used in this rule is a term of art carefully defined by the rules to provide meaning to the definition of hearsay. The word “statement” is defined as “an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a).

         Rule 801(d)(2) excludes certain “statements” from being hearsay, including those captioned  as “admissions.” But the focus is on whether what the defendant said or did is an “assertion” rather than whether than what he said or did was an “admission.” If it was an "assertion", it is a "statement" and therefore excluded from the hearsay rule by Rule 801(d)(2)(A).

       I think what you meant to say is that Rule 801(d)(2) does not apply to everything the defendant says or does out of court. That would be true. The hearsay rule and the admission of party opponent exception applies only if what the defendant says or does is an “assertion.” An out of court  question by the defendant, for example, would not be an assertion and therefore not hearsay at all.

      But if it is an “assertion,”  it is by definition a “statement” for purposes of the rule and, therefore, Advocatus was correct when he posted "if you're the defendant in a criminal prosecution, and you've made any statement to anyone, it's not considered hearsay under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2)."

Anything a party to a lawsuit says can be used against him in trial.  that is bedrock.

With all due respect to the prior post, it is considered hearsay, but it is an exception. It is being offered for the truth of the matter.

Also, it has nothing to do with the Truth in Evidence amendment. This rule preceded that by about 100 years and was not affeced.

Finally, a Crawford would be a waste of paper.  Crawford only applies when the person who made the declarant is not available for cross-examination.  If it is a party to the case, he is  available for cross.

There may be problems in showing who made the delcaration, but if it can be traced to the defendant it is admissible in every jurisdiction that uses common law evidence principles.

Whether the review is admissible or not is going to be irrelevant in the real world for any one of a number of reasons:  (1) A hobbyist or provider charged with a solicitation or prostitution will generally find the practical reality of an offered deal preferable to trial.  Even if the case goes to trial, it's most likely a local judge that could care less about the rules of evidence.  The judge knows the defendant can't practically afford to appeal (otherwise, there would be a deal on the table).  The judge will nod and wink as the prosecutor lies and offers falsified and inadmissible evidence and the pig tells whoppers on the witness stand. "Those who get A's in law school become professors, those who get C's become the best litigators."  I'll take a lawyer with practical common sense over a legal expert every day of the week.

"Anything a party to a lawsuit says can be used against him in trial.  that is bedrock."

Absolutely false.  Even under the very permissive federal rules, plenty of statements by a party will not get in.  I don't know the rules in other states, but here in California there are many reasons why particular statements might not be admitted.


"With all due respect to the prior post, it is considered hearsay, but it is an exception. It is being offered for the truth of the matter."

Being offered for the truth of the matter is part of the definition of hearsay.  It does not give rise to an exception.  If it did, the "exception" would apply to literally all hearsay and would make the hearsay rule meaningless.


"Also, it has nothing to do with the Truth in Evidence amendment. This rule preceded that by about 100 years and was not affeced."

The Truth in Evidence Amendment was enacted here in California, so I presume you're talking about California law.  The rule you describe has never existed in this state, and certainly wasn't on the books for 100 years before the amendment.  If it had been on the books, the amendment - which was enacted to expand the categories of statements by the defendant that can be admitted against him at trial - would have been pointless.


"If it is a party to the case, he is  available for cross."

Nope.  We're talking about criminal cases here, and criminal defendants do not have to testify.  Those who don't testify can't be cross-examined.  Defendants who don't testify are deemed unavailable.  Even in civil cases, parties can invoke their fifth amendment right in response to specific questions.  Those parties are considered unavailable as to the matters they refuse to testify about.


"There may be problems in showing who made the delcaration, but if it can be traced to the defendant it is admissible in every jurisdiction that uses common law evidence principles."

Not true.  Except where a statute says otherwise, hearsay rules apply to statements by defendants just as they do to statements by anyone else.  When such statutes do exist, the reason they were enacted is that "common law evidence principles" - which would have governed but for the statute - are exactly the opposite of what you claim.

-- Modified on 3/15/2009 3:32:18 PM

You're right that most cases don't go to trial, but that doesn't make the rules of evidence irrelevant.  When you decide whether to strike a particular bargain, your decision depends heavily upon the perceived strength of your opponent's case.  If the evidence your opponent wants to use against you is inadmissible, his case is pretty weak.  If it is all going to get in, then his case is a lot stronger.  If you're the defendant, you want your advice to come from a lawyer who knows the rules well enough to determine which evidence is and isn't admissible.


"Even if the case goes to trial, it's most likely a local judge that could care less about the rules of evidence."

Except for defendants who allegedly broke the law while traveling, all criminal trials are before "local judges".  Those judges are just as local to the prosecutor as they are to the defense attorney.  The distance between the defendant's home and the judge's chambers has no bearing at all on how good the judge will be.

The vast majority of judges care a great deal about the rules of evidence.  Some don't apply them as skillfully as others, and some are too willing to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt on close calls.  But it is extremely rare to find a judge who "couldn't care less" about the rules.


"The judge knows the defendant can't practically afford to appeal (otherwise, there would be a deal on the table)."

Criminal defendants who are facing possible jail time and who can't afford to hire a lawyer are entitled to appointed counsel, both at trial and on appeal.  Their ability to appeal has little or no bearing on whether the D.A. will offer a deal, or whether the defendant will accept it.  An individual may want to save money on legal fees so he can use it for other purposes, but for prosecutors there are no other purposes.  Their entire budget is there so they can prosecute people.  That's why the prosecutors have jobs.  The idea that they are reluctant to go to court or to devote their resources to prosecuting people is nonsense.

Also, here in California, the attorney general's office represents the government in most appeals.  The costs of fighting a criminal appeal do not come out of the district attorney's budget.  The D.A. thus has no financial incentive at all to avoid an appeal.


"The judge will nod and wink as the prosecutor lies and offers falsified and inadmissible evidence and the pig tells whoppers on the witness stand."

Even the worst judges I have ever known would not do this, and it is very rare for a prosecutor to lie to a judge.  It is also uncommon for them to knowingly "offer falsified and inadmissible evidence", even if only because defense counsel will object.  Police do lie sometimes, and when they do they usually get away with it.  Why?  Because the judges don't know that they're lying.  Such testimony gets in despite the judge, not because of him.


"I'll take a lawyer with practical common sense over a legal expert every day of the week."

If your definition of "practical common sense" means seeing the law the way you do, then you'll end up with a lousy lawyer.  Expertise matters - especially when the client overestimates his own legal knowledge.

-- Modified on 3/15/2009 3:42:12 PM

"The judge will nod and wink as the prosecutor lies and offers falsified and inadmissible evidence and the pig tells whoppers on the witness stand."


Spoken like someone who has no idea how the system works and who prefers to blame the "unfairness" of the system rather than learn how to navigate it.

Posts like his are the reason I am grateful that there are "real" lawyers here like DC and Sidone to set the record straight.

I know there is already a disclaimer at the top of the page, but I think the warning should be in as bold a text as possible to discourage readers from taking much of the advice here as literal.

...just went to Court for Civil Case and website was presented and the judge immediately ruled HEARSAY and did not allow it in evidence. More specific, this was a Child Support hearing and did not allow local news station as evidence either.  In fact to my "stars from above" in Florida...the Department of Revenue ruled on $4,000 in arrearages to be paid and the judge didn't find me in Contempt. (actually, the total in arrearages is close to $50,000)  Now lets see how my ex handles the Motion filed for willful Contempt on Visitation charges...to be hear next.  

But...to stick to the point...I was surprised that the mention of anything on the internet was HEARSAY and thrown out.  

Lawyers....please advise

hear is a simple example of hearsay evidence:

Mary told me that John told her that he killed his wife.  I can not testify as to what John may or may not have told Mary, but Mary may certaintly testify that John admitted to her that he killed his wife.

An out of court statement can be used against anyone as long as it is not hearsay - in other words someone has to give first hand testimonty stating that they heard the supposed out of court statement directly from the source.

As a law enforcement officer who thinks what two adults do in private is their business and an active hobbyist let's look at this logistically.

In order for me to figure out who may have type a review on TER would require a lot of time and resources.  I would have to get the IP it was sent from contact ISPs, get subpoenas, etc.  we just would not waste that amount of time and resources to get a hobbyist when all we need to do is post some ads on CL or set up some stings.  This usually nets a few 100 or so hobbyist and requires no warrants, subpoenas etc..  I use to work Vice until I saw hot fruitless it was.

While obvious, just wanted to make one point cause over the years I have seen providers freak out over detailed reviews believing it might incriminate them.  A review by a hobbyist would certainly be hearsay against a provider.

I think the reasons it is extremely unlikely that a review would ever be used against a hobbyist in a prosecution for two reasons other than hearsay (which have already been mentioned).

One is the time and effort that LE would need to even connect a hobbyinst with a review - too much time and effort for a misd prosecution; and there are much easier ways to get hobbyist if they have a quota.  

Two is even if they identify him by a screen name LE would have alot of problem authentication or proving the hobbyist did the post.  

Additionally, I think there is a rule that evidence beyond an admission is needed to convict, but not sure

I am not a lawyer though