Search Site
Menu

Statements of Intent

In Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the Supreme Court rendered a famous and controversial judgement concerning the admissibility of a person’s out-of-court statement. Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the famous Hillmon case, but it restricts its applicability. In Hillmon, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed evidence of person A’s statement of his intention to travel and, here is the controversial part, with person B. Perhaps, that was too broad an exception to the hearsay rule, which requires a judge to focus on reliable evidence. Consequently, by passing the Rule 803(3) hearsay exception, Congress restricted the use of such a statement to allow only for person A’s statement of intention as to what person A will do. That seems to make the most sense. After all, using person A’s reference to person B as evidence that the two men did actually travel together seems problematic. For example, Person B could have decided to part company with Person A immediately after the statement was made, or perhaps the two men never met to begin with and/or the statement was fabricated.

We are left with an eminently sensitive rule: a statement of a person’s own intention is admissible but not as to another person’s and, in no event, is a statement of memory or belief admissible. A statement of a memory or belief could be fabricated to cover up a crime or to get someone off the hook from civil liability. Certainly, a statement of intention can be deliberately misleading, but cross-examination may take care of that. Besides, a statement of intention is not determinative that the act actually happened; it is only an exception to the hearsay rule from which the trier of fact may infer that the intended act did take place. In other words, that statement of intention will advance the football but on its own will not get you into the endzone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feinberg & Alban, P.C. fervently protects your rights
  • The Boston firm of Feinberg & Alban, P.C. specializes its practice in the area of personal injury.

    The attorneys serve the entire state of Massachusetts in addition to affiliating with lawyers in other states to handle cases outside of Massachusetts.

  • $7.7 Million Award for Feinberg & Alban Client in Personal Injury Trial

    Boston Attorneys Win Highest Injury Verdict in Massachusetts in 2011 & 2012.

Client Reviews
  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Choosing Feinberg & Alban was probably one of the best decisions I ever took. Robert Feinberg and Perry Feinberg are amazing in their professionalism as well as in compassion. Perry was the lead attorney for me. He was always responsive to any questi...

    Read more

    Raja Bhattacharyya

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I would like to express my gratitude to Feinberg & Alban PC. They are great people and professionals. If you need an attorney these are your guys. Thank you so much! Tatiana

    Read more

    Tatiana Andreeva

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    It was unbelievable!! I got into a motorcycle accident didn’t remember a thing when I woke up I was in the hospital and very terrified I thought to myself I think I need a lawyer I started looking online and I came across this law firm let me tel...

    Read more

    Vin Loco

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Colleen Santora helped immensely in every step along the way of my fight against the insurance company regarding my property damage and injuries sustained. I'm grateful and would recommend Colleen to anyone! Thanks

    Read more

    DatDude Lex

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    When I was in a car accident, my husband and I searched for a good injury lawyer to represent me After talking to several law firms, we found Feinberg & Alban. The moment we finished talking with Robert and Perry Feinberg, both my husband and I immed...

    Read more

    Jayashree Banerjee

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form