From the Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute:
"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule..."
You can read the full text and the exceptions in the link below:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hea...f,becomes impossible to establish credibility.
The information I previously quoted from another site equated "out-of-court" with "not under oath" which I think is a reasonable statement. There are some other proceedings besides a court that has testimony that would be under-oath, and that testimony would be the same as in a court (not hearsay and admissible). As stated, there are exceptions to these rules described in the Cornell link above.
"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule..."
You can read the full text and the exceptions in the link below:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hea...f,becomes impossible to establish credibility.
The information I previously quoted from another site equated "out-of-court" with "not under oath" which I think is a reasonable statement. There are some other proceedings besides a court that has testimony that would be under-oath, and that testimony would be the same as in a court (not hearsay and admissible). As stated, there are exceptions to these rules described in the Cornell link above.