{UAH} Hearsay and UNAA Financial Report

Geoffrey,

I have seen you post the hearsay rule several times here. Though I do not have enough info to comment much about this matter (i.e I haven't seen the full finance report...so I don't know if Brian team is correct or Francis' team is correct), I'd like to inform you that the hearsay rule only applies to testimony before a COURT. It doesn't apply to other situations.

Even if unaanet/unaalist were a court room, the hearsay rule has so many exceptions. A few of them might be relevant here: admission (if a declarnt admits that he did something, then his statement is admissible.  The admission ca be express or it can be inferred from his conduct), business records (UNAA's business records could be admissible without calling the 2 finance folks to talk about them because the books can be trustworthy since the 2 folks do not keep these books in anticipation of having to produce them after Nyende/Nekyon had asked for them), declarant is unavailable to testify (Mr Bukenya has refused to come forward to tell us his side), statement against self-interest (A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in this position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true. Mr Senoga has said some things that seem to indicate that he took a commission for choosing the Marriott...he has also asked for more time to produce the report, indicating that the report is delayed becuase HE needed more time, rather than because the 2 finance folks or the BOT have not finished their job), present sense impression (people that read the reports or attended meetings have leaked info relating to what they heard declarants say on the day the declarant read the leaked info or attended the alleged meetings), records of regularly conducted activity (the treasurer's report is made regularly and was not made for purposes of being leaked) Finally, there is the catchall exception...if "the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence", then the court would admit hearsay evidence.

thanks

 
--- In UNAANET@yahoogroups.com, Geoffrey Kiboneka <kiboneka@...> wrote:
>
> Folks
> Once again never believe in Hearsay Statements- "I was called yesterday, sally told me "
> There is a reason why in this great country hearsay evidence is inadmissible, read it for yourself
> Â
> Â "Evidence given by a witness as to what someone else said and then speculating as to what the meaning of that statement means is the legal equivalent of spreading rumors(malwa talk, lugambo, wolokoso). Under the law, unless the person who made the statement is available to testify as to what he or she said and state what was meant by the statement, the statement is considered unreliable and therefore, inadmissible in Court."
> Â
> "The rule against hearsay has its roots from the Kings Court in England. In those Courts, individuals were often convicted by hearsay statements. Often the memory and motives of human beings can be unreliable. In the Kings Court, many statements taken out of context or even fabricated were used to punish those who disagreed with the King and his policies. When the United States formed its own body of law, this practice was outlawed in the name of giving every defendant a fair trial. "
> Â
> http://bgpappa.hubpages.com/hub/Understanding-Hearsay-Evidence
> 

For a faster response please contact me at 415.789.6427