Hearsay. The evaluator shall not base the evaluation of a unit member on any information which was not obtained through established process. Hearsay statements shall be excluded from written evaluations. Electronic listening or recording devices may be used for evaluation purposes only by mutual consent of the administrator and the unit member.
Hearsay. As summarized efficiently by the Court of Special Appeals in its unreported opinion in this case, 22 Seleany testified that one assailant wore a “mask.” Detective Xxxxxxx testified that a clothing item capable of being so described was recovered from Xxxxxx’x car. More specifically, Detective Xxxxxxx stated that the item recovered “was described on the scene of the robbery,” a remark the admissibility of which we consider separately and later in this opinion for the guidance of the trial court on remand, should a new trial occur. Xxxxxxx also stated that there were two assailants – adding the presence of a driver suggests that the police should have found three people in the stopped white sedan, which they did. Officers Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx observed that, after Xxxxxxx activated his emergency lights, the white sedan sped up. [Xxxxxx] contends the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain improper testimony by Detective Xxxxxxx about items he recovered from [Xxxxxx’x] vehicle; and that the trial judge compounded the error by conducting his own examination of the detective. Detective Xxxxxxx gave the challenged testimony after he asked him what items had been recovered from the white [sedan]. The detective responded, “I believe it was a dark t-shirt like cut up, it was a piece of black cloth, and a couple of other items that were black that [were] described on the scene of the robbery.” Defense counsel objected and moved the court to strike the response. The court overruled the objection and a bench conference ensued. Based on the argument that the detective had no basis to know what was described at the crime scene, Xxxxxx’x counsel moved for a mistrial. The State remonstrated that Detective Xxxxxxx had “conducted a number of interviews,” with Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx among others, to which Xxxxxx responded that “there’s nothing written in any report that said Xxxxxxx identified anything out of that car coming from the robbery.” The trial judge decided to “de-prejudice” the testimony by his questioning the detective so as to “enlighten the jury as to [the detective’s source for the statement].” Although Xxxxxx’x counsel objected to the trial court’s stratagem, the trial judge proceeded anyway, although agreeing to admonish the detective for his “tendency to give us conclusions rather than facts,” which was “making for a difficult administration of this trial.” Then, this exchange occurred. [Trial Judge]: With respect to the last statement you said, just...
Hearsay. Hearsay may be considered but will only be given the weight appropriate under all of the circumstances, with due consideration given to the importance of credibility assessment. Absent extenuating circumstances, the hearing officer will not rely on prior statements made by the Parties or witnesses during the investigation whose credibility is central to the determination unless those Parties or witnesses make themselves available for questioning by the hearing officer.
Hearsay. [198] The Intended Respondent submitted that the Court ought to disregard any evidence that can be considered hearsay and inadmissible. In particular, the Court was invited to give little weight to newspaper reports of statements alleged to have been made by the former Minister of Finance, Central Bank Governor and the Managing Director of CLICO. It was submitted that even at the leave stage the quality of the evidence is important; that since in the main, the Application is concerned with legitimate expectation, the Court must be satisfied on admissible evidence that there was a clear, unambiguous promise by the decision-maker devoid of any qualification which the decision-maker has breached by the decision sought to be challenged. [199] In response, the Intended Applicants argued that it was settled practice in Judicial review proceedings to consider hearsay evidence. In support of this contention, Xx. Xxxx cited Xxxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, Judicial Review, 2nd Edition, 1997, Chapter 17.11 where the authors opined: “When dealing with questions of admissibility … the court will normally admit the evidence de bene esse before ruling whether or not it will take it into account in reaching its final decision. This allows relevance to be assessed against the background of all the circumstances of the case.” He also cited R v Camden LBC ex parte Xxxxx [1997] 29 HLR 236. Analysis [200] I agree with Xx. Xxxx’x submissions that this is the proper approach to take in respect of any hearsay material which may have been adduced at this stage. It is admitted de bene esse and before final decision is given in the matter I will rule as to whether I will take it into account in determining the matter.
Hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible if it is deemed by the Judge to be relevant and reliable.
