The concept of "hearsay evidence" is much misunderstood or wilfully misinterpreted, not least by members of the legal profession. I don't know why, as it's such a simple logical concept - if I heard something being said and report it that is not hearsay. ...
Now for my 2 psi:
In terms of evidence that may be used in court, the basic rule is that, subject to a handful of exceptions, hearsay statements are not admissible.
So, what is a hearsay statement?
A hearsay statement is a statement that is made out of court, but which is sought to be introduced in court to prove the truth of the matter which is the subject of the statement. For example, if I hear someone say that he is certified as a dive master and I then testify that I heard him make this statement, it is hearsay if I am offering the statement to prove the person is actually certified as a dive master.
This, of course, helps explain why hearsay statements are generally not admissible: They are generally not reliable. Consider this: I can be examined and cross-examined to see if I really heard the statement, but there is no way to test the validity of the statement I heard. In the example above, the jury can evaluate my ability to hear and comprehend, to remember what I heard and to tell the truth. From this, the jury can decide if I heard the person make the statement. However, there is nothing that enables the jury to decide if the person is really a dive master.
A statement is not hearsay if it is being offered to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted. In the example above, if the testimony is offered to show that the person making the statement was trying to get other divers to follow him on a dive it is not hearsay. If my testimony is to prove something other than that he is certified as a dive master, the judge will frequently tell the jury that they can consider my testimony for the point for which it is being offered, but not for determining if the person is really a dive master.
There are instances in which a statement, which seems to be hearsay, isn't. In some jurisdictions, a statement by a party to the case, which tends to hurt that party is not considered hearsay when it is offered against that party. In other jurisdictions, the statement is still hearsay, but is admissible anyway. In either case, the person against whom it is being offered would not make a damning admission unless it was true and in any event is present in court and can deny or explain the statement.
Sometimes, the statement is one which the law deems to have a special credibility such that if the jury concludes I actually heard it, it can conclude that it was truthful. As noted above, that would include an admission against one's interest. However, excited utterances are also deemed reliable. Thus, a statement by a witness to a remarkable event, spontaneously made at the time of the event is considered to be reliable. Because of the spontaneity and remarkability of the event, the witness won't have had time to fabricate the statement. Additionally, dying declarations or deathbed declarations are deemed reliable. One who is about to die is deemed less likely to lie as there is very little reason to do so.
As a practical matter, when there is no jury, and the judge is performing the function of a jury, the judge may be more liberal in allowing testimony that might otherwise be excluded as hearsay. Such judges often reason that their knowledge of the law and rules of evidence will enable them to either disregard the hearsay statements or to give it only such consideration as "unreliable" evidence warrants.
Turning to the matter of Gabe and Tina, things Gabe said will generally be admissible, either because they are not considered hearsay or because of an exception to the hearsay rule.
Last but not least, I want to point out that many cases have been lost because of the hearsay rule. There is a somewhat infamous case in which someone was injured as the result of a defective part on a motorcycle. The person sued the purported manufacturer. The purported manufacturer argued that the part was not its part, but rather a knock-off that was defectively manufactured by someone else.
To refute this defense, the plaintiff compared the defective part to an exemplar part that the plaintiff subsequently obtained. The comparison showed the two were essentially identical.
The problem was proving that the exemplar was actually made by the purported manufacturer and was not itself a knock-off. To do this, the plaintiff's attorney gave a sworn declaration saying he had purchased the exemplar at a motorcycle shop, that the packaging said that it was made by the defendant and that the internal documentation showed that it was made by the defendant.
The court ruled that the plaintiff had not established its exemplar was made by the defendant and that as a result, it did not matter that it was identical to the part that caused the injury. While no one doubted that the attorney purchased the exemplar or that the packaging and documentation said it was made by the defendant, there was no way to test the truth of the assertions made in the packaging or documentation as to the origin of the exemplar. Anyone making knock-offs could have put the defendant's name on the packaging or have duplicated its documentation.
We may never know whether the exemplar was genuine or a knock-off. But, one thing is for sure: The plaintiff lost because the court ruled the statements in the packaging and documentation were hearsay and not admissible.
