Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-13-2002, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


The point was that the legal system has many facets that rely on hearsay evidence to resolve very important cases. We just won a $20 million case in the AAA. And it wasn't mandatory arbitration, it was contractual arbitration.

I bet your firm didn't rely on flakey hearsay evidence to win the $20M.

<a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/adr11.htm" target="_blank">Beginner's Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolution</a>

Quote:

For example, where a court must apply complex rules of evidence, and the decision of the trial judge can be overturned for admitting evidence that should have been excluded, arbitrators have a duty under law to admit any evidence which might be relevant. Arbitrators will of course discount questionable testimony and evidence, such as obvious hearsay, but the relaxed rules of evidence do allow each side to present their case in a more informal manner. The parties better understand the process and feel confident that they had the opportunity to present their whole story.

Layman · 05-13-2002, 04:58 PM

Ahh Toto, most parties--whether respondents or not--introduce hearsay at AAA hearings. The arbitrators don't take it at face value, but evaluate it as to its relevance and probative value.

The American Arbitration Association was very clear that hearsay evidence will be considered. For that reason we decided not to bring a motion to surpress, knowing that it would be denied.

But no, you aren't likely to get arbitrators to take "flakey hearsay" as probative, but they will take reliable hearsay as probative.

The California Code of Civil Procedure explicitly waives normal evidentiary rules and California case law has routinely affirmed arbitration awards that relied on hearsay evidence.

Methodissed · 05-13-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
We have wandered far-afield from the original question, so, to get us back on track, here's the original question, keyed in by Methodissed:

Yeah this thread has been all over the place. It offers some interesting reading though.

Thanks for the helpful reply Godfrey.

Vorkosigan · 05-14-2002, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:


Y'know, you're right. Actually, I think "fungal" would be closer to the intended meaning.

heh...

godfry

ROTFL. Looks like the topic has really mushroomed on us....

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2002, 04:58 PM	#112
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Ahh Toto, most parties--whether respondents or not--introduce hearsay at AAA hearings. The arbitrators don't take it at face value, but evaluate it as to its relevance and probative value. The American Arbitration Association was very clear that hearsay evidence will be considered. For that reason we decided not to bring a motion to surpress, knowing that it would be denied. But no, you aren't likely to get arbitrators to take "flakey hearsay" as probative, but they will take reliable hearsay as probative. The California Code of Civil Procedure explicitly waives normal evidentiary rules and California case law has routinely affirmed arbitration awards that relied on hearsay evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.