Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
Well actually its not hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement by a Party offered against the party is not hearsay. ( Some state court rules provide that an admission is hearsay, but make admissions one of the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, and admissions while in the definition of hearsay, are still admissable.)
Applied to this case, the testimony of the Andreu's is not out of court so it isn't hearsay. The satement attributed to Armstrong is offered against him, and is therefore considered an admission, and is admissable, either as not hearsay, or as an exception to the hearsay rule, depending on which rules of evidence are applicalbe.
Whether it's credible is another issue, but it is not inadmissable hearsay.
I never involked a legal definition but the accusation is still one person re-stating what another said (and when). In order to judge their credibility we would need vasltly more data on that person and the circumstances. Additionally, I never stated that the statements were inadmissable and we must each judge credibility individually.
Does anyone know the statue of limitation for using controlled substances in Texas(CA=2 years)? How far back can the UCI go to punish someone?