The federal rule — This verbatim statement of the federal rule—the majority view on hearsay in the U.S.—eliminates the need for checking any other source. The rule is boldfaced to stand out from the rest of the text.

Effect of the rule — This short, plain English statement of the rule helps you grasp its meaning on your first reading. It breaks the rule down into its key components, with each listed on a separate line, thus allowing an item-by-item comparison with your fact situation.

Basis — The rationale for the rule and its origin.

Discussion — These paragraphs explain the philosophy and limitations of the rule. These comments will help you remember the rule and apply it to cases of first impression. Key words are boldfaced to guide you when you are skim-reading.

Illustrations — Applications of the rule to a common fact situation eliminating any remaining confusion you may have about the rule’s basic meaning.

Trial Practice — Many litigators will find this section the most valuable. It discusses problems you are likely to encounter at trial, gives advice for those of you seeking and those of you opposing admission, and tells how the courts actually apply the rules.

Relevant Cases — The most significant cases are listed in this section, updated annually to reflect new interpretations. The names, citations, facts and holdings are listed in circuit order to allow you to cite your circuit’s cases to the court.

And more — a listing of corresponding state rules and their variations from the federal rule allow you to use this book in any court.

Include the word “hearsay” in the objection, especially in the presence of the jury.  Hearsay is probably one of the most familiar legal terms to nonlawyers, who reasonably sense that it connotes a problem with the validity of the evidence.

Counsel wishing to impeach a witness through a prior inconsistent statement must raise in the cross-examination of the witness the fact that the witness testified earlier, the aspects in which that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’ trial testimony and provide the witness an opportunity to explain why the testimony is inconsistent.

A party against whom a religious organization’s record is offered should seek to show that essentially the organization merely took the word of the person who provided the information.

In a claim based on sale of goods, Uniform Commercial Code §2-724 provides for the admissibility of market quotations, trade journals and periodicals of general

circulation whenever the “prevailing or value of any goods regularly bought and sold in any established commodity market is in issue.”

Watch out for opposing counsel’s attempts to create fanciful motives without any factual foundation.  They are not sufficient to exclude a statement.

The fact that an article appeared in a journal to which the expert subscribes and which the expert believes is the best in the field is not enough.  The article itself or its author must be considered authoritative.  Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. County Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 23 F3d 1175, 1184 (7th Cir. 1994); Meschino v. North American Drager, Inc., 841 F2d 429, 434 (1st Cir. 1988); Allen v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 782 F2d 1517, 1519-20 (11th Cir. 1986).

As defense counsel, urge the judge to at least require some preview of the government’s evidence so that when the government presents individual statements, the judge can have a sense of their context.