Hit & Run Accident: Heresay ?

My husband's car, which was parked on the street in front of our house, was struck by a hit & run driver about 1:00 a.m. in May. Because my husband was up at that time working in the garage, he heard the impact, saw what happened to his car, but the driver was already gone. The police came immediately to take a report. In the morning, we surveyed the damage and found a headlight from the other vehicle, which matched the other driver's very large pickup truck. My husband's car, so you know, was hit so violently that it was pushed up onto the sidewalk and left in pieces one block long. We had the car towed to a reputable collision center until we could iron out who was responsible for what.
The individual who struck our vehicle was found by the police, cited for the accident - hit & run, cited for having no proof of financial responsibility - he gave the officer invalid insurance information, and his vehicle was not registered in our state or any other for that matter.
This individual was taken to court by the police and found guilty of all the charges against him. Because we chose to take collision off of our insurance policy, our Ins. Co. does not want to do anything. They suggested we take said individual to court for damages, which we did.
We go to court this past week for damages and "his high priced lawyer" would not allow us to speak. He basically challenged anything we tried to say and said the entire incident was "heresay" . . . . . He said the police report was heresay, the officer taking the report was heresay and because my husband and I did not actually see the event happen, what we had to say was "heresay" . . . .
Well, I am not going to let this go - I want the money our vehicle was worth and I want this individual to stand up and be a man! Admit that he did wrong and get off this "heresay" garbage. I am not in a position financially to hire an attorney and because I put my right hand up and swore that I WOULD TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP ME G O D, I assumed his side would do the same. NOT.
Also, this individual brought a mechanic to court and I believe said mechanic wants to say that there would have been no way that vehicle was driveable.
Yeah, right. Individual was smashed to the eyeballs, hit our car, and now wants to ask for "forgiveness".

I would certainly appreciate professional advice. We are having difficult finding an attorney who wants to take our case - mostly because we cannot pay. Neighborhood Legal Services said they do not take these cases and if I show up in court again w/o a lawyer I'm probably going to have to be subjected to having to listen to an officer of the court - who knows his client is guilty - say "heresay" "heresay" "heresay" and I don't need that kind of intimidation because that's all it is - intimidation.

Thank you.

Sorry this happened to you ---and glad no one was hurt.

If the criminal case is at an empasse, try going to civil court--small claims. I don't know the jurisdictional limit in your area, but in my area ( for example) it is $7500.00. If it is more than that you need to hire an attorney and head to general sessions.

A court may have found there was not enough evidence to convict him-----The prosecutor should have been your voice in the court room at day. In any regard, if the criminal case is done, go to small claims--you can do that yourself. And the burden of proof in a civil case is MUCH LESS (preponderance of the evidence--51%) than it is for criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt).

And no, your insuranc company does not have to pay if you did not have full coverage----sorry.....

And I do feel your frustration at this man getting "off" without any consequences....the man who killed my husband in a car accident is free and drives a SCHOOL bus for the state. I do understand.

Good luck.

Hearsay is defined as "an out of court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted." However, many states have various exceptions to a hearsay objection. If I were you, I would look up the hearsay objections that apply in my state, read through them carefully, make notes...etc. When his lawyer objects to statements as hearsay, you can respond to the judge by saying something like "Business/Government Records Exception," or "Present Sense Impression Exception," or "Independent Legal Significance."

If you are having a hard time finding a lawyer to take your case, you should try LegalMatch. You could find an attorney that would take your case for a small fee, or even perhaps on a contingent basis. This attorney would know the laws of evidence in your state and could perhaps fight against all of the hearsay objections.

Maybe this information will help: "Hearsay" Evidence - Criminal Law

The rule against hearsay is deceptively simple and full of exceptions. Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim." The definition of hearsay is not too difficult to understand. But the matter can become very confusing when one considers all of the many exceptions to the general rule against hearsay.
Even if a statement meets the requirements for hearsay, the statement may yet be admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The FRE contains nearly thirty of these exceptions. Most of them are generally available, although a few of them are limited to times when the declarant is unavailable.
There are twenty-four exceptions in the federal rules that do not require proof that the person who made the statement is unavailable. These are:

1. Business records, including those of a public agency
2. Certain public records and reports
3. Evidence of a judgment of conviction for certain purposes
4. Evidence of the absence of a business record or entry
5. Excited utterances or spontaneous statements
6. Family records concerning family history
7. Judgments of a court concerning personal history, family history, general history, or boundaries, where those matters were essential to the judgment
8. Learned treatises used to question an expert witness
9. Market reports, commercial publications, and the like
10. Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates
11. Past recollections recorded
12. Recorded documents purporting to affect interests in land
13. Records of religious organizations concerning personal or family history
14. Records of vital statistics
15. Reputation concerning boundaries or general history
16. Reputation concerning family history
17. Reputation of a person's character
18. Statements about the declarant's present sense impressions
19. Statements about the declarant's then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition
20. Statements in authentic ancient documents (at least 20 years old)
21. Statements in other documents purporting to affect interests in land and relevant to the purpose of the document
22. Statements made by the declarant for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment
23. Statements of the absence of a public record or entry
24. The "catchall" rule

GentleGrace, if you're going to give advice, at least give the right advice... btw, are you an attorney? You sound like you're in law school at best, with absolutely zero experience of civil practice in the property damage/personal injury field. If you bothered to read Pinkdiamond's ramble, you would have noticed that there was a criminal case (presumably a traffic trial), for which the tortfeasor was found guilty... as such, I really have no clue why you're citing to the hearsay exceptions in a criminal trial... since it's obviously in the civil side now.

Pinkdiamond,
First, I have no idea what state you're in, and state law and rules vary by jurisdiction. I'd check with a local attorney if you really want good advice for your jurisdiction.

Second, I dont know why you were in court for "damages". Were you in a small claims trial? And how do you go back if you already had the trial (where you were supposed to introduce evidence)? Normally, you'd file a complaint (even a small claims complaint), wait for the defendant to file an answer, do discovery, and then proceed to trial. Where in this chain are you?

Third, since the police officer was not there to witness the accident, the police report cannot be used to prove negligence... as it falls under what is called the police report privilege. Essentially, the police report is hearsay. The police report will therefore not be introduced in any trial to prove the defendant (guy that hit your car) is at fault. The other attorney is right in asserting hearsay. You'll have to prove your case with other evidence other than the police report.

Fourth, you can introduce testimony from your husband about the damage to the vehicle, and the evidence (headlight) he found. That is direct evidence that he saw with his own two eyes. You can then use the "CERTIFIED" order of conviction to prove the charges against the other driver, such as hit and run, etc... Is it a bench trial or a jury trial?

Good luck... and don't take any legal advice from any website as true. Do your own research for your jurisdiction or hire an attorney.

P.S. I happened to come across this website and felt compelled to answer you just because of GentleGrace's response...

ROFL... TOO funny.

You took exception to my providing a LINK for the poster to educate herself about HEARSAY??? The link I provided was INFORMATIONAL and since this matter was NOT strictly civil, it is relevant---education IS always relevant. She questioned WHY, when they went to court, their lawyer objected on the grounds of "hearsay". I provided the link ---only a fool makes fun of knowledge. AND only BOYKIN references my personal life in her very first posting, just as you did with DONALLIE.

You are trifling under ANY name.

And one more thing you might want to do before touting yourself as a veritable legal guru? (laugh) Check your use of the term "TORTFEASOR". Tortfeasors have nothing to do with criminal court---yet you say the "tortfeasor" was found guilty. Tsk, tsk. He isn't a TORTFEASOR in criminal court--he is a DEFENDANT.
Furthermore, if you would READ the OP's "ramble" you would see the following statement: " Because we chose to take collision off of our insurance policy, our Ins. Co. does not want to do anything. They suggested we take said individual to court for damages, which we did. We go to court this past week for damages....."
Soooo, the poster SAYS she followed her insurance company's advice and WENT to court--and what do you ask her? If she went to civil court yet (eyeroll). And, although it is self explanatory, "damages" refers to the DAMAGE done to their vehicle---the reason they are in court in the first place * bright light coming on*
Nice try. I give you a "FIVE" for effort............a ZERO for the rest. All further attempts at superiority really should include a working knowledge of the simple terms to which you refer with laughable inaccuracy.

Just wanted to respond to the posts in the forum regarding my legal issue.

First of all, when we initially went to Court, the man who hit my husband's car was found guilty on 3 charges of:
1. Failure to provide proof of financial responsibility.
2. Failure to have a registered vehicle in any State.
3. Leaving the Scene of an accident.

And this is not the first time he has done this to someone. He had an accident two weeks prior where he was charged w/DUI and the same above incidents. And the next night after he hit our car, he drove into someone's garage. He obviously has issues with authority because he is appealing our motion and all the tickets he got. Hello?????

Anyway, when we initially went to court, this man's attorney would not allow us to speak. I am in no position financially to hire an attorney or even have one on a contingency basis. He claimed "heresay" to anything and everything we tried to explain. Although the police officer involved is very willing to help us, from what you all are telling me, his report means absolutely nothing . . . . . and it kind of makes me wonder why I am going to bother wasting my time with this guy who apparently does not wish to stand up, admit he made a mistake, and BE A MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He has to go to court for the previous Hit & Run, DUI issues and I don't think he's going to be able to get out of that one. And of course I won't be able to present that as evidence of a pattern of BAD BEHAVIOR BECAUSE IT'S ALL FREAKING HERESAY.

Gentle Grace - I appreciate your help and taking the time to respond to my post and to the other person who countered her information - lighten up. It just seems to me that the man who hit my husband's car is trying to get out of being a responsible adult and not taking responsiblity for his own bad behavior and what I am going to get out of this whole situation is laughed at because I cannot provide myself with proper legal representation.

I don't feel I need to have an attorney - I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!!!!!!

Sorry I missed this posting earlier. What happened when you went to court?

While police reports are considered hearsay since they are merely a record of what those involved stated happened, parts of it can be admissible under certain circumstances---contrary to the other poster who hopefully has been identified and banned as she has been on her other myriad of user names. In order to accomplish the aforesaid goal, you would have to ask the police officer questions on the stand, under oath, and then, if the answers on the stand are different from the reports, you can then get the reports into evidence through the hearsay exception known as "prior inconsistent statement."


Also, the other posting calling the police reports "police report privilege" is again incorrect. Perhaps the phrase for which she was striving is simply "fair report privilege". Fair report privilege has nothing to do with testifying in court----it means, on a basic level, that in the scope of (in this case) the police would be able to make statements that, if taken out of context could be considered libelous. An example of this would be "The claimant says that the subject is a drug user"...... the "subject" would not be able to sue the police officer for merely relating that the claimant (the person filing the police report) alleged that the subject used drugs........Fair report privilege.

Just thought I'd correct some of this ridiculous misinformation from Donallie/Boykin/007.

Hope things went well in court.