[compass_copium]

It's not a communication with a lawyer, though. Asking a guy on the street if it's illegal to sell the meth you have in your pocket is not privileged communication, and he could definitely testify about that after you got arrested!

[submerge]

That would be hearsay, yes?

[jmalicki]

Why? He heard you say it and can testify to it.

[TheCoelacanth]

Repeating something that you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay. Typically courts want to hear about facts from people who actually know those facts, not someone who heard someone talking about those facts.

This would fall under the "statement against interest" exception to hearsay, though, because obviously the person who originally said the thing isn't going to want to admit in court that they were committing a crime.

[jmalicki]

The fact is that he said it.

You aren't repeating a fact you heard him say, you are reporting what you heard him say.

[TheCoelacanth]

Reporting what you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay.

If you want to use someone saying something as evidence in court, they need to say it to the court as directly as is practical. If the person saying it isn't going to say it directly to the court, then it needs to be justified with one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In this example, it would be allowed because the person saying it wouldn't be willing to admit to a crime in court.

[jmalicki]

It's a statement not offered to prove the truth of the asserted statement - non-hearsay.

It would be hearsay if offered as evidence that you had meth in your pocket. It would not if offered in evidence you were enquiring about the legality, to show intent.

[compass_copium]

‾\(o O)/‾ maybe, IANAL