"Ward consistently maintained that the encounter was "wholly consensual". His defense highlighted that the two exchanged friendly messages afterward and that the woman gave no indication she wanted to leave the vehicle during their interaction."

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes, I also read the article, but were those messages admitted to evidence or is that all hearsay? Because unless there was a video of the intercourse, the statement about her not saying anything in the vehicle is definitely hearsay which is inadmissible.

[–] AngryishHumanoid@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No. Hearsay is when person A claims person B made a statement when person B is not available in court to be cross examined. The messages were admitted as evidence and were a main point in the defenses' argument. They were admissible because the messages were between the 2 parties to the lawsuit, therefore both were available to be questioned.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 4 points 3 weeks ago

Oh okay good, if the messages were admitted then that answers my question. Ty.

[–] AngryishHumanoid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I need to correct myself. The messages would be admissible either way having nothing to do with hearsay. The messages are direct, documented evidence on their phones. As you pointed out the statements made (or not made) in the car, absent video, audio, or a third party, could only have been available from the 2 parties statements and therefore needed both parties to be available in court to be entered.