What happens in an accident case where the other driver does not show up for court, and the officer did not see the crash?

The driver’s attorney objects to hearsay and lack of foundation, and the driver who showed up to court wins the case.  This is because the officer did not personally see the accident, and only relied upon what the drivers involved in the accident said happened.  This is problematic, because it is hearsay, and therefore the court will not hear this type of testimony from the officer.  What happens then is the court only hears the testimony of the driver who is present in court regarding the cause of the accident.  The officer cannot say anything about the cause because the officer didn’t see it!  So, the version of the events leading up to the accident given by the driver who shows up to court is the only version that is admissible as evidence, and therefore that driver wins the case.

What is hearsay?

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the proof of the matter asserted.  Hearsay can be written or verbal.  When someone in court quotes what another person said outside of the courtroom (so-in-so said “x, y, and z”), it is hearsay.  When someone reads a letter in court, the contents of the letter are hearsay.  Note: a defendant’s statements (written or verbal) are not hearsay and are always admissible in court.  Also, statements which are not offered for the truth of the matter similarly are not considered to be hearsay and will be heard by a court.  All other statements which were made outside of court must have a hearsay exception to be admitted into evidence in a courtroom.

 What is lack of foundation?

Witnesses may only testify to their personal knowledge and observations.  What they saw, heard, tasted, felt, and smelled.  A person who did not see a crash happen, but showed up to the crash scene later, does not have any personal knowledge as to the cause of the crash.  If they try to testify to the cause of the crash in court, an objection can be made to keep the testimony out of evidence because it is “speculation.”