Hearsay.

Step 1: Isolate the statement (make sure it's not some weird double hearsay
issue with a statement written on a document or a statement quoting someone
else or some shit. Then we have to make sure BOTH statements are not
hearsay)

Step 2: Who is the declarant?

a. If it is a party... think opposing party admission.

(Hint: the UBE is sexually obsessed with opposing party admissions and if this is
an answer choice... think long and hard about whether it is right. Pro-Tip: It is
always right)
b. If it is a non-party talking hearsay... move to step #3.

Step 3: Determine the purpose for which the evidence/statement is offered:

a. Truth? Look for exceptions

b. Some other purpose? Non-hearsay? MIMIC?

Me trying to get the motivation to make paid content when all I want to do is bless
the Goat Gang with truly amazing free content
Last night, there was a sweet darling on Reddit named chibushyy who had a
question about evidence.
I was touched that this person had reached out to me. Still, I considered ignoring it
due to the sheer depth of knowledge I would have to impart

Until I saw this

So let's take it back to where it all began:

Just a simple little guide to how we can think about hearsay.

Step 1: Isolate the statement (make sure it's not some weird double hearsay issue
with a statement written on a document or a statement quoting someone else or
some shit. Then we have to make sure BOTH statements are not hearsay)

Step 2: Who is the declarant?

a. If it is a party... think opposing party admission.

(Hint: the UBE is sexually obsessed with opposing party admissions and if this is
an answer choice... think long and hard about whether it is right. Pro-Tip: It is
always right)
b. If it is a non-party talking hearsay... move to step #3.

Step 3: Determine the purpose for which the evidence/statement is offered:

a. Truth? Look for exceptions

b. Some other purpose? Non-hearsay? MIMIC?

Goat Tip for 350+ UBE Scorers: Be wary of answer choices that will talk about
things which are "non-hearsay" (i.e. opposing party admissions, prior inconsistent
statements, etc.) vs. "Hearsay but with an exception" (i.e. 803 exceptions: excited
utterance, statements against interest, etc.). They like to fuck with people by
putting two answer choices. There are no PRACTICAL differences between
hearsay exceptions and exemptions for purposes of the UBE... but you need to
know which are called non-hearsay and which are called hearsay with an
exception.
Anyway... hope that little step chart made sense. It kind of made sense in my little
squirrel brain.
Today... we shall talk about NON-HEARSAY.
But first...
What even is the truth of the matter asserted?
u/ChiBushyy is charged with theft of a $10,000 Chanel Purse.
Goat testifies on the stand and says "I heard Rainbow Brown say
that u/ChiBushyy stole the $10,000 Chanel Purse."

YNW Goat testifying

Uh-oh.
The truth of the matter asserted is that u/ChiBushyy stole it. That is exactly what
I'm testifying to - the truth of that whole little purse incident.
ANYTIME SOMEONE IS BRINGING IN A "SCOOBY DOO AND THE
GANG" STATEMENT TO SOLVE THE WHOLE MYSTERY OF WHY
EVERYONE IS IN COURT... THAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER
ASSERTED
IF THE TRIAL IS ABOUT "IS THE PEN BLUE OR NOT"
AND I SAY "JOHN TOLD ME THE PEN WAS BLUE"
THAT SHIT IS NOT ALLOWED
THAT IS WHY WE ARE THERE
AND IF IT WASN'T FOR THOSE KIDS AND THEIR PESKY DOG SCOOBY
DOO, I would have gotten away with it.

Velma gang rise up

Always figure out "why are we in court?" and if someone brings in some bullshit
to Scooby Doo solve that mystery, that's hearsay.
Anyway that's all basic shit, let's get into what is NOT hearsay:
Party Admissions: The right answer 84% of the time.
ANY STATEMENT ANY PARTY MAKES
ANYWHERE
FOR ANY REASON
AT ANY TIME
IN ANY UNIVERSE
IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THEM BY THE OPPOSING PARTY SO LONG
AS IT IS RELEVANT
DO. NOT. FUCK. THIS. ONE. UP.
A plumber sues a homeowner.
You can tell it will be an opposing party admission just by HOW they start the
actual problem:
 Two people. Civil case. Yup... they are about to start talking shit about what the
other person said.

Anything either of these two fuckers says to each other is ADMISSIBLE as non-
hearsay. Easy money.
No, you cannot introduce YOUR OWN statement lmao. It's called an "opposing
party admission" not a "you lying to everyone admission." It has to be introduced
by the other party. Stop playing.
Some problems start off like this:
"A plaintiff offers to testify to what the defendant said to him in private."
Boom. Wrap it up. You know that is about to be a party admission. Even said in
private, it gets in.
Somebody told me "Goat this is unfair! I could just say the other side said
anything, and then make stuff up."
Yea... you could.
Here's the problem with that: Perjury, impeachment, and corroborating facts.
If I get up there and say "I know I have a contract dispute with Rainbow Brown,
but he told me in private that it was all his fault."
and I have NO evidence to back this up.
The jury and judge will laugh in your face and the opposing parties lawyer will
annihilate your pathetic life on cross examination for 14 hours making fun of you.
You will lose all credibility immediately then be charged with perjury jfl.
Pro-tip: It will always be someone "suing" someone else in civil court. Because
remember, in criminal law the VICTIM is not the opposing party of the defendant
lmao... it's the State. And the State doesn't really like... talk.
Trick #2: They like a situation where some coca-cola truck or some shit hits a
cyclist. Then the cyclist sues coca-cola. The driver of the truck shows up to the
hospital and says "hey I'm sorry I hit you."
Uh-oh... that is an opposing party statement by an AGENT. THAT COMES IN
TOO!
Statements by agents come in. Statements by employees who are in the ordinary
course of their employment come in as admissions against the employer. You
know the drill.
Trick #3: The DISGUISED opposing party statement:
Sometimes the Bar Exam will try to disguise an opposing party statement on some
completely psychopathic machiavellian tactics
 The creators of the MBE

The situation will be like this:

u/just--my--luck will injure Goat when they are at Goats' pop-up raw vegan store
"RAWVOLUTION: GOAT."
She will accidentally spill his Keto Apex GOAT Coffee on him while he is
listening to Episode 947 of the Tim Ferriss podcast

I drink these every morning

She is so worried because he's so insanely vegan and handsome and powerful that
she instantly offers him $1,000 to deal with these minor burns and his 45 second
loss in productivity from having to pause his podcast (estimated loss of
productivity value: $15,000).
Goat declines the money graciously, as he is already a multi-millionaire due to
several modeling contracts signed with Tom Ford earlier this year.
Goat sues later on. Can Goat bring in the offer?
You may THINK it is barred by the settlement exception, but remember...
discussions surrounding settlement offers are only allowed in response to a
DISPUTED claim.
So if it's not a settlement offer then it is... you guessed it friends...
AN OPPOSING PARTY HECKIN ADMISSION.
You all get the picture.
Trick #4: Don't forget the adoptive admissions. Adopted kids matter too. If
someone says some WILD out of pocket shit on your name and you just remain
dead silent like a little weirdo... your silence can be deemed an admission if a
REASONABLE person would have responded negatively.
Trick #5: Don't forget about co-conspirator admissions my Goat Gang. Okay
so basically if two people join together to commit a crime (they don't have to be
charged), and are talking to each other during the conspiracy about something IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY... all these statements can be brought
in SO LONG AS YOU HAVEN'T WITHDRAWN AT THIS POINT.
 Goat not responding when a hater accuses him of sliding into Reddit DM's.
Admission adopted.

Now let's talk about a Goat trick that changed my life when I was a young Goat.
If the problem is talking about "notice"... the answer will always be that it is not
hearsay. This is an extension of the "effect on listener" doctrine.
If the UBE is sexually obsessed with party admissions, they have an even bigger
fetish for NOTICE.
They go to NOTICECon every year in Las Vegas and dress up in weird Notice
outfits and talk to people about NOTICE.
That is how much they are into it.

If ANY of you, see ANY TYPE OF SHIT on this pathetic test about "notice"... and
you don't pick the answer choice which says "it can admitted for the non-hearsay
purpose of showing notice" ... you will be in BIG TROUBLE with me.
We also have to remember that impeachment is not offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted.
When we are impeaching someone's credibility through prior inconsistent
statements, bias, sensory deficiencies, this is not to prove the truth of the matter
asserted... we're basically saying "you're a damn liar", "you're biased" or "you can't
really see shit that well."
How do we recognize when these problems arise in the context of non-hearsay:
Honestly, they usually come up when they are talking about prior statements of
trial witnesses.
Remember, if we have a prior inconsistent statement made under oath (at a
former hearing, trial, deposition etc.) it can come in as NON-HEARSAY and be
admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant is (1) AT THE TRIAL, and
(2) SUBJECT TO CROSS.
Usually it will be some dude who took a deposition at a civil trial (under oath), and
now they want to bring it against him in his criminal trial. So long as he is subject
to cross and had a similar opportunity to defend himself before these will be
brought in as non-hearsay.
Prior consistent statements are non-hearsay as well but remember: they are ONLY
ALLOWED TO BE BROUGHT IN REBUT A CHARGE OF RECENT
FABRICATION.
IF NOBODY BUTTED YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU CAN'T REBUT
Sometimes the MBE likes these little trick scenarios where someone will just damn
near OFFER up some consistent statement. I call this like a "pump-up the witness"
tactic.
Johnny will be like "yea the light was red."
Then the lawyer will be like "Johnny... didn't you tell the whole school the light
was red and then tell your mom."
um...
.... no. You have to BUTT to RE-BUTT.
Prior statements of identification - we talked about these. See my earlier post.
But essentially the problem will be talking about a VICTIM who pointed someone
out way earlier on in the case. Then when they get on the stand they "can't
remember" (aka they were threatened in the interim time or got scared to snitch on
the gang).
These prior statements will be admissible as non-hearsay so long as the victim
is (1) in court, and (2) subject to cross.
Effect on Listener/State of Mind distinction is Hard to Spot... so stay woke
The classic example of effect on listener is ChiBushyy is on trial for Unlawful Use
of a Weapon. The lawyer asks me "Goat... why did you run from ChiBushyy?"
I respond:
"ChiBushyy told me they had a gun, so I got scared and ran."
I am not using this statement to PROVE they had a gun, I am using it to show why
I ran.
The problem is this: EVERYTHING that ANYONE says technically has an
"effect" on anyone listening. So people will use this exception all the time to
"backdoor" each other. It is a weakness in the Federal Rules of Evidence which is
ruthlessly exploited by some lawyers and dare I say it may even be clarified at
some point.
I went to a trial and a lawyer I worked for used this exception over 300 times...
um.... what.
This is different from the state of mind EXCEPTION:
How do we recognize when these "state of mind" exceptions arise: Usually they
will say some goofy shit like this:
If they tell us something requires "knowing"... they are likely about to have
someone testify that something he heard negated his "knowledge." The problem
will say like "Johnny heard from Anna that the TV was hers and it was not stolen."
He is not showing whether or not he stole the TV or not (the truth of the matter), he
is trying to show that he did not have KNOWLEDGE that it was stolen because he
heard Anna say that it was hers!
\

Stop kidding ourselves on the MBE. Shut up and Pick it.

Then-existing-state of mind also shows up when the Defendant is talking about his
intention to do something in the future. I like to think of these using a cute little
exemption memory device: "Is the defendant trying to show he was holding hands
and making plans?"
The defendant will steal a car or some shit.
Then he will call a witness who will say something like "the defendant told me he
was going to return it after two days once he got back from Bonnaroo."
So if you are showing your INTENTION to do something in the FUTURE... that is
allowed as non-hearsay.
The answer choice will say something like:
A. "Yes, as a statement by the defendant of his then-existing-state of mind."
Easy money.
It also covers statements of feeling "I am bored", belief "I think my car is broken",
pain "my knee hurts", and attitude "I hate her."
What they typically test on the MBE though are these statements of future intent
where the defendant says "EVERYONE... I AM GOING TO MISSISSIPPI!" This
is allowed.
REMEMBER... You can't use this for BACKWARDS LOOKING
STATEMENTS! Trick alert.
If I get accused of robbing a bank, I can't bring in a witness to say that two months
AFTER the robbery I told someone I was forced to commit the robbery BACK
THEN. Um... lol. That is not a statement of future intent... that is a backwards
looking self serving bullshit statement you are trying to bring in to clean up what
you did.
Hopefully you get the difference.
Legally Operative Words or Facts
Some verbal acts are actually considered "doing something" instead of "asserting
something." They are thought of more like actions rather than words. Offer and
acceptance is more like an ACT, not an assertion of a fact in the world. Saying "I
do" for marriage or offering someone a BRIBE for example are all words which
accomplish an action rather than make an assertion.
The credibility of NO ONE matters when I say that "John offered Lisa the cabbage
for $4, and Lisa accepted."
I might as well say "I saw Lisa eat a kale salad" or something.
I am basically testifying to someone doing an action using words and Hearsay is
only meant to stop ASSERTIONS.
So acts of independent legal significance are NON-HEARSAY.
Non-assertive conduct
If I start crying out of nowhere, that is not hearsay.
Because you wouldn't really know if my crying indicated a "yes", or a "no."
I cry all the time. It is usually indicating a "no." But it's hard for people to tell that
about me.
Hearsay must also be from humans. So barking by a dog or a computer printout is
NOT hearsay my friends.
They test both of these exemptions.
Have to run my friends. Hope that helped a LiL bit.
I will drop more content soon and will have a new website soon where I drop some
cheap paid tricks.
Maybe I'll drop a thread on here soon about MIMIC evidence? Or what do you all
want to see. Let me know what you'd like in the comments.
HAPPY THURSDAY.