All Out Of Court Statements Are Hearsay
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 4 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence4
Example wrong choices
14772_fishing_vessel_log · EVIDENCE · Choice AInadmissible as a party admission, because Daniel's out-of-court statement to Esther binds him as a party.
Why it's attractive
Party admission applies only when the declarant is the opposing party or their agent. Daniel is neither.
Why it's wrong
Party admission applies only when the declarant is the opposing party or their agent. Daniel is neither.
14772_fishing_vessel_log · EVIDENCE · Choice BInadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
Out-of-court statement offered for a non-truth purpose is not hearsay. Name the purpose first — identity inference, not truth of content.
Why it's wrong
Out-of-court statement offered for a non-truth purpose is not hearsay. Name the purpose first — identity inference, not truth of content.
14772_fishing_vessel_log · EVIDENCE · Choice DInadmissible, because Daniel has not been missing for more than seven years.
Why it's attractive
No rule makes the duration of disappearance a precondition for hearsay admissibility. This invents a legal threshold.
Why it's wrong
No rule makes the duration of disappearance a precondition for hearsay admissibility. This invents a legal threshold.
14778_retreat_loading_warning · EVIDENCE · Choice Aadmissible as evidence that Naomi could not keep up with lifting packed hymnals for an entire predawn route.
Why it's attractive
It picks admissible but uses the warning as proof that Naomi lacked capacity.
Why it's wrong
It picks admissible but uses the warning as proof that Naomi lacked capacity.
14778_retreat_loading_warning · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because Ruth's warning is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
It routes to exceptions before asking whether the statement is offered for truth.
Why it's wrong
It routes to exceptions before asking whether the statement is offered for truth.
14778_retreat_loading_warning · EVIDENCE · Choice Dinadmissible, because Peter's view of Naomi's abilities is not based on personal knowledge.
Why it's attractive
It asks whether Peter saw Naomi's work instead of whether he heard Ruth's warning.
Why it's wrong
It asks whether Peter saw Naomi's work instead of whether he heard Ruth's warning.
22214_barnabas-hearsay · EVIDENCE · Choice ANo, because the statement does not meet the applicable hearsay exception.
Why it's attractive
Before asking whether a hearsay exception applies, ask: is this hearsay? The statement is offered for effect on listener, not truth.
Why it's wrong
Before asking whether a hearsay exception applies, ask: is this hearsay? The statement is offered for effect on listener, not truth.
22214_barnabas-hearsay · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because there is no indication that the customer is unavailable to testify.
Why it's attractive
Availability matters only for hearsay exceptions that require unavailability. If the statement isn't hearsay, availability is irrelevant.
Why it's wrong
Availability matters only for hearsay exceptions that require unavailability. If the statement isn't hearsay, availability is irrelevant.
22214_barnabas-hearsay · EVIDENCE · Choice DYes, because Barnabas is defending himself against a criminal charge.
Why it's attractive
The criminal-defense posture doesn't change hearsay analysis. The statement is admissible because of its non-hearsay purpose, not because the case is criminal.
Why it's wrong
The criminal-defense posture doesn't change hearsay analysis. The statement is admissible because of its non-hearsay purpose, not because the case is criminal.
22219_baptism_dock_bottleneck · EVIDENCE · Choice ANo, because the statement is inadmissible hearsay.
Why it's attractive
This treats every out-of-court statement as blocked and ignores the opposing-party lane.
Why it's wrong
This treats every out-of-court statement as blocked and ignores the opposing-party lane.
22219_baptism_dock_bottleneck · EVIDENCE · Choice BYes, because the statement qualifies as a public record.
Why it's attractive
The answer shifts from Lydia's statement to the deputy's status and answers the wrong evidentiary question.
Why it's wrong
The answer shifts from Lydia's statement to the deputy's status and answers the wrong evidentiary question.
22219_baptism_dock_bottleneck · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because the statement is not being used for impeachment.
Why it's attractive
The answer assumes the statement matters only if used to attack credibility.
Why it's wrong
The answer assumes the statement matters only if used to attack credibility.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →