Talk:Federal Rules of Evidence/Hearsay

Problem with the "Legal Fact" description:

Under the explanation of statements that establish a "Legal Fact" being not hearsay under the 801(c) definition, the example is the statement "I am Jesus!" being used to show sanity. I think this category of non-hearsay statements actually refers to statements required to satisfy some element of a law or crime, e.g. the statement to an undercover officer "I'll pay you $10k to murder John Doe" would be offered to prove the charge of solicitation to murder, not to prove that the declarant would actually pay the $10k--the statement itself, the solicitation, is the legally significant event. I believe this category also encompasses oral contracts, or statements indicating a premeditation to breach a contract, as well as statements regarding the revocation of a will--because in the law of contracts and of wills, the statement itself, regardless of truth, triggers something in a statute.

In addition, I believe that the debate between scholars is not settled about whether statements such as "I am Napoleon" are non-hearsay as opposed to hearsay that might fit an exception. The one side says it's only hearsay if you use it to prove the declarant is Napoleon, while the other side says it's still hearsay if you use it to prove that the declarant believes he is Napoleon (because "I am Napoleon" is the same as saying, "I believe I am Napoleon," and the latter is only relevant to assessing the declarant's sanity if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted).