Hear-say

[Shonika Swift]

Jurisdiction

Michigan

I know I have asked this same question but I wanted to add a tad bit more.... A 4 year old child was found incompetent to testify in a trial because he was unable to answer simple questions that was asked. Can his testimony still be used and can the officer that originally took his testimony be able to testify in his place at a trial?

 

[ElleMD]

It depends. You can see the guidelines CA uses for family court here Title Five Rules - rules_of_court

Not every court or situation is exactly the same, so your mileage may vary. It may not be necessary at all if whatever the child did share at some point can be corroborated in some other fashion. This is a question for your attorney.

 

[army judge]

I know I have asked this same question but I wanted to add a tad bit more.... A 4 year old child was found incompetent to testify in a trial because he was unable to answer simple questions that was asked. Can his testimony still be used and can the officer that originally took his testimony be able to testify in his place at a trial.

Hypothetically speaking, what is it you THINK the child can do to help or hurt?

Be advised, most four year olds aren't allowed to testify in court because they can't distinguish right from wrong, lack the ability to reason, fail to distinguish fact from fiction, and are great little liars.

Again, hypothetically speaking, what has the four year old been alleged to have said to a cop or cops?

Bear in mind, there are such things under law known as spontaneous or excited utterances.

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition.

It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event".

It is an exception to the hearsay rule.

 

[Shonika Swift]

Hypothetically speaking, what is it you THINK the child can do to help or hurt?

Be advised, most four year olds aren't allowed to testify in court because they can't distinguish right from wrong, lack the ability to reason, fail to distinguish fact from fiction, and are great little liars.

Again, hypothetically speaking, what has the four year old been alleged to have said to a cop or cops?

Bear in mind, there are such things under law known as spontaneous or excited utterances.

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition.

It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event".

It is an exception to the hearsay rule.

....
Even if it was admissible can the person giving the statement be cross examined???

 

[adjusterjack]

....
Even if it was admissible can the person giving the statement be cross examined???

Yes.

Cross examination is a right of anybody against whom testimony is given.

 

[army judge]

....
Even if it was admissible can the person giving the statement be cross examined???

If the kid were allowed to testify, your lawyer would be required to GENTLY cross examine the child.

However, if the kids aid to a cop, for example, "Mommy shot daddy with his gun! I was so scared. I ask mommy why you killed daddy?"

Not much any lawyer could do with that.

The truth can't be killed.
A jury will easily understand the truth when they hear it.