1.Nonhearsay.

Bsstatements(tellingfriendsthathewasWoodyAllen)iscircumstantialevidenceof
stateofmind,asinProblem3H(AnnaSofersWill)(page140)andtheNapoleonexampleinBetts.The
inferencethatBwasnoncomposmentisdoesnotdependontruthvalue.Undereitheroftwolikely
interpretationsofwhathesays(does),hiswordsindicatethathelackedcapacity:EithertheyshowthatB
reallythoughthewasWoodyAllen,ortheyshowthathewentaboutsayingsomethingabsurdwhile
knowingitwasabsurd.SincehiswordsindicatelackofcapacityregardlesswhoBactuallythinksheis,
theirrelevancedoesnotdependonahearsayuse.(IfproponentspurposeweretoprovethatBreally
thoughthewasWoodyAllen,hiswordssayingsowouldbehearsay,buttheywouldfitFRE803(3).And
evenifBsverbalbehaviorraisesdoubtabouthiscapacity,hestillmightbesaneenoughtodoawill
whichrequiresonlythatheknowthenatureandextentofhispropertyandnaturalobjectsofhisbounty.In
short,Bsstatementisrelevantandnonhearsaywhenofferedtoshowincompetence,butitisnot
necessarilydispositive.)
2.Nonhearsay.Wordsofferedtoproveeffectonlistener(DsstatementtoCaboutthebrakesbeingbad
showsthatCwaswarnedbeforegettinginDscar).SimilartoProblem3F(ImfromtheGas
Company)(page137).
3.Hearsay.ThewordsofEassertthatheisanagentofAllCureDrugstore,andareofferedtoprovethat
point.Withadditionalfacts(likeproofthatEdoesthisthingallthetime,andproofthatAllCureknewor
shouldhaveknownwhatEwasdoing),thewordsmightbepartoftheevidenceshowingostensible
authority,andassuchtheywouldbeverbalactshavingindependentlegalandlogicalsignificance(hence
nonhearsay).Butwithoutadditionalfacts,thewordsonlyhaveprobativeworthontheagencyquestionif
takenasproofofwhattheyassert.AgainsimilartoProblem3F(ImfromtheGasCompany)(page
137).
4.Nonhearsay.Lyingtoapoliceofficerinanattempttocoverupanotherscrimeislikelytobeitselfa
crime,soGsbehaviormaybeviewedasanactandtreatedlikenonassertiveconduct.SeeProblem3J
(MyHusbandisinDenver)(page148),aswellasAnderson(page149)andPedroza(page150).
5.Nonhearsay.Whenapersongivesphysicalexpressiontoanemotionapparentlybeyondhispowerto
control(fright,grief),hisbehaviorseemsinvoluntaryandlackinginassertiveintent,sothereisno
statementorassertionunderFRE801(a).SeeGwinn(page125).Thereisapossibilityofdeception
(whatseemsinvoluntaryandunreflectivemightbecontrived),whichisarealrisk,butwecanrationally
decideinmostcaseswhethertheconductreallyisreflectiveandcontrived.Werunsuchriskswhenever
weadmitproofofwhatlookslikenonassertiveconduct,offeredinsupportofthetwostepinference(act
reflectsbelief;beliefreflectsacts,eventsorconditionsintheworld).Itis,forexample,alwayspossible
thatPhillip,whenhedroveforwardacrosstheintersection,intendedtoexpressorcommunicatethatthe
lighthadchangedtogreen.SeeProblem3B(KenworthandMaserati)(page116).Wetakethisriskin
thatcontext,andshouldaccepttheriskhere.
6.Nonhearsay.LswordstoM(essentiallyKenteredthebuilding)areverbalmarkersheretheymark
apointintimeratherthananobject.ThetestimonyofLthathesawKenterprovidesnonhearsayevidence
thatKentered.WhenLtestifiesthathementionedtoM(tenminutesafterthefact)thathedseenKenter,
heestablishesaconnectionintimebetweentheeventofKenteringandtheeventofLspeaking.WhenM
testifiesincourtfrompresentmemorythatitwasjustpastmidnightwhenLspoke,Mestablishesthe
timeofLsstatement,whichinturnestablishesthetimeKentered.Theexampleisthebarmaids
statementinProblem3G(EaglesRestBar&Grill)(page138).
7.Hearsay.Orepeatsincourthispriorstatement,whichisofferedasproofofwhatitassertsthatN
committedthecrime.Thepointthatastatementishearsayifofferedforitstruth,evenifthedeclarant
testifiestothestatement,ismadeinthetext(page112,footnote1).SinceOdoesnotnowsaytheperson
hepreviouslyidentifieddidthedeed,theverbalmarkerlogicofthebarmaidsstatementinProblem3G

(EaglesRestBar&Grill)(page138)doesnotapply.Ofcoursethestatementwouldbenothearsay
underthestatutorymagicaccomplishedbyFRE801(d)(1)(C),ifOiscrossexaminableaboutit.Seethe
descriptionofthestatutorymagicofFRE801(d)(1)(page144)andthematerialexploringhisprovisionin
thenextchapter(pages166188).
8.ProbablyHearsay(closecase).OnthesideofhearsaytreatmentforQspartingstatement(Verynice
tomeetyou),onemightsaythatQisimplyinginthestrongsensethatitwasherfirstencounterwithP,in
whichcaseQsstatementislikeObliquesstatementsayingthattheyoughttoputHigginsinjailforthis,
inProblem3A(ThreeSeeARobbery)(page114).Oralternatively(stillonthesideofhearsaytreatment),
onemightsaythatQhasntactuallysaiditwastheirfirstmeeting,andweareintheareaofstatements
offeredtoprovemattersassumedbythespeaker,similartotheKrulewitchcasewhereoneofthearrested
womensaidItwouldbebetterforustwogirlstotaketheblamethanKaybecausehecouldntstandit,he
couldntstandtotakeit.Krulewitchcalledithearsay(pages155).Takingtheotherview(thatthe
statementisnothearsay),onemightstresstheperformativeaspectofsocialpleasantriesthatarealmost
automatic:Verynicetomeetyouarewordsthatserveasimilarfunctiontoholdingthedooropenfor
someoneladenwithpackagesorbeckoningforapedestriantocrossinfrontofacar,anditsupportsan
inferencenotsomuchbecauseofwhatitsays(literallythespeakerishappytohavemettheother)butof
whatitdoes(complimentthepersoninthecustomaryfashionwhenpartingcompanyafterhavingmetfor
thefirsttime).Here(unliketheevictionnoticeinSinger),theperformativeaspectissmall.Onbalance,
wedcallithearsay.
9.Nonhearsay.TheactionofthecollegeinplacingRinafourthyearFrenchcourseduringherfreshman
yearisbestviewedasnonassertiveconductbytheinstitution(orFrenchdepartmentorprofessor).Of
coursethereisanassertiveaspect:Whateverformthenoticetakes,enrollingastudentinanadvanced
FrenchcourserequiringanapplicationconstitutesastatementthatRscredentials(revealedinthe
application)adequatelypreparesRforthecourse.Butacceptingtheapplicationisalsoaninstitutionalact
puttingRinthecourse,andthatsthemainpoint.BaronParkeinWrightwouldcallithearsay,butFRE
801rejectsthisview.Theconducthereislargelyverbalinnature,butthatdoesnotmatter,andagainthe
paradigmistheevictionnoticeinSinger(page146).
10.Nonhearsay.Thesearewordsofferedtoproveeffectonhearer.TsstatementtoSisathreat,which
suggeststhatwhateverSdidthereafterwasundertheinfluenceofthethreat.LikeProblem3F(Imfrom
theGasCompany)(page137).
11.ProbablyNonhearsay(anotherclosecase).Joiningasingleissueorganizationcanbefairlydescribed
asanassertionanactintendedtoexpressandtocommunicatetotheworldthejoinersviewpoint.This
examplefitsoneinterpretationofPacelli(page151),whereactionsbyfriendsofBeverlyPacelliincoming
tothemeetingsheconvenedcouldbeinterpretedaspurposefulexpressionsofbeliefthatVincent
committedmurder.Thatjoininganadvocacygroupcanbeviewedasastatementisrevealedinoneofthe
waysthatwespeakaboutsuchthings:WecouldreadilysaythatjoiningMothersAgainstDrunkDrivingis
astatementthatthejoinerbelievesweneedtodomoretopenalizedrunkdriving.Ontheotherhand,
formallyaffiliatingwithanorganizationisalsoabehavioralstepthatdoesnot,onitsface,sayanythingat
all.Ifitsnotanadvocacygroup,joiningisnotmuchofastatement.(Joiningthebookofthemonth
clubdoesnotasconvincinglysaythatonebelievesinreadingasjoiningMothersAgainstDrunk
Drivingassertsthatpenaltiesfordrivingdrunkshouldbestrictlyenforced.)Eventhemessageofan
advocacygroupmightbesomixedthattheactofjoiningwouldntsupportcertainkindsofconclusions.
(ThusjoiningtheAmericanAssociationofRetiredPersonscantreallybeastatementthatsocialsecurity
benefitsshouldbestrengthened,althoughthegroupisanadvocacygroup,andislikelytoadvocatesucha
position,andjoiningislikelytosignifythatonewhojoinsdoesholdthisview.)EvenifMothersAgainst
DrunkDrivingisasingleissuegroupsuchthatjoiningcanberealisticallyviewedasastatementthatthe
joinerthinksweshoulddomoreaboutdrunkdriving,stillitismorethanastatement,justasevictinga
tenantinSingerismorethanastatementthatthetenantlivesonthepremises.Eitherhearsayor
nonhearsaytreatmentcanbedefendedhere.Wewouldoptfornonhearsaytreatment.

12.Hearsay.Wsconduct(goingtothedrawer,fetchingthepistol,handingitover),whenviewedinlight
oftheOfficersquestion,isWsassertionthatVownsthepistol.Indeed,Wsconductonlytendstoprove
thepointifitisinterpretedashisassertionofthepointitself.AsintheCarocase(informerpointsouthis
sourcetolawenforcementofficers)(page115),thispurelyassertiveconductishearsay.
13.Hearsay.WhenXsaidat10AMItshouldstopraininginthenexthour,thepropositionthatitis
rainingnowissoclosetotheobviousintendedmeaningofthestatementthatwecanbeconfidentthatX
reallymeanstoexpressorcommunicatethatitisrainingnow.WhatXsaidislikeObliquesstatementthat
theyoughttoputHigginsinjailforthis,inProblem3A(ThreeSeeARobbery)(page114).
14.Nonhearsay.TheprosecutingattorneysstatementtellingYthathehadprobablecausetoarrestZfits
thecategoryofwordsofferedtoproveeffectonhearer.TheclosestexampleisProblem3F(Imfromthe
GasCompany)(page137).
15.Nonhearsay.Thisexampleassumesagradeschoolbet,notonerequiringthepersonmakingthebetto
beatthespread(AwinsthebetifGeorgetownwinsthegame;AlosesifGeorgetownlosesthegame).
HereisoneofBaronParkesexamplesfromWright(page118):Parkewouldtreatitashearsaybecause
thatishowhetreatsallacts,offeredforthetwostepinferencetoproveactorsbeliefinfact,hencethe
factitself.Butpartingwithmoneyinvolvesaphysicalactthatinvolves(quiteliterally)personalcost,and
theactismostlynonassertive.Onewhopaysoffhisdebtmaybeacknowledginghisloss,buthebetonthe
otheroutcomeandwouldprefernottoexpressanythingexcepthisdutytopay.Partingwithmoney
changesAsposition(heisthatmuchpoorer).Ifanyonehasactedonabelief,Ahas.
16.Hearsay.TheverdictconvictingBofbankrobbery,proveninotherproceedings,representstheprior
jurysstatementthatshecommittedthepriorrobbery.Ofcourseaverdictisalsoanact,everybitasmuch
astheactofthelandlordinSinger(page146)insendingtheevictionnotice,andtheactofBarbarain
Problem3J(MyHusbandisinDenver)(page148):Theconsequenceoftheverdictisnot(asinSinger)
gettingridofatenant,nor(asinProblem3J)throwingpoliceoffthescent.Rather,theconsequenceofthe
verdictisthrowingdefendantinjail.Jurorsdontriskpunishmentforfalseverdictsjurorshaveevenless
atriskthanBarbara.Andprobablyincarceratingadefendantdoesntmatterasmuchtoajuryasevicting
thetenantmatterstothelandlord.Still,averdictisobviouslyanactitisquintessentiallyperformative
speech.Neverthelessdespitethestrengthsoftheargumentjustdescribedthematterissettledinthe
profession:Weviewverdicts(andjudgments)asstatements,ifofferedtoprovethevariouspointsthat
mustbefoundtojustifytheverdictorjudgment(theyarehearsay).Ofcourseseveralhearsayexceptions
embracejudgments,sowetreatthemashearsaybutadmitsomeofthemforsomepurposes.SeeFRE
803(22)&(23).Ofcoursewegivejudgments(sometimesevenverdicts)resjudicataandcollateral
estoppeleffecttoo,butthesearedoctrinesofprocedurallaw,notprinciplesofevidence(andusuallygiving
averdictorjudgmentsucheffectmeansforeclosinganycontest,ratherthanusingtheverdictorjudgment
asevidence).
17.Hearsay.CsstatementTomorrowImgoingtoNewOrleansisntsomuchaprediction(asitwould
beifaseerpeeredintoaglassglobeandsaidTomorrowtheRoyalswillwintheWorldSeries)asitisa
statementofintent.Insteadofsayingintend,wegenerallyusethepresentprogressiveasanexpression
thatmeansintend,andthestatementTomorrowImgoingtoNewOrleansistheequivalentofI
intendtogotoNewOrleanstomorrow.(UsingthepresentprogressivehelpsconveycertaintyIm
goingmakesitevenmoredefinitethatthepersonisgoingthanIintendtogobecausethelattersounds
tentativeIintendrightnowtogo,butwhoknowshowIllfeeltomorrow?)Anyway,Csstatement
shouldbelikenedtoPlaintalksstatementinProblem3A(Higginsistheonewhodidit)(page114)
becauseincommonparlancethewordsmeanintent.
18.Hearsay.Dsstatementcanbereadascommunicatingindirectlythatthebrakesarebad,resembling
ObliquesstatementinProblem3A(theyoughttoputHigginsinjail)(page114).AlternativelyDs

statementcanbereadascommunicatingacircumstantiallyrelevantfactthatindeedDthinksheoughtto
relinethebrakesbeforeanybodydrivesthecarandthusitresemblesSirchevsstatementinProblem3A
(Higginswentoutofherecarryingmoneybags):Asinthecaseofthemoneybags,herethefactthatthe
ownerofthecarthinksthebrakesneedfixingtendscircumstantiallytoprovetheydoneedfixing,sothis
statement(likeSirchevs)mustbetakenasproofofwhatitasserts(Ddoesthinkthebrakesneedfixing)
beforeittendstoprovethatthebrakesreallydoneedfixing.Viewedthisway,Dsstatementisagain
hearsay:EventhoughthestateofmindexceptionwouldjustifyadmittingDsstatementasproofofwhat
Dthought,thatexceptionwouldnotallowuseofDsstatementtoprovethatindeedthebrakesneeded
fixing(itisafactrememberedorbelieved,andFRE803(3)cannotbeinvokedtoprovesuchpoints).
19.Nonhearsay.Fsletteraperformativequalityresemblingordersplacedbycallersatdrugselling
establishments.SeeHeadleyandLong(page148).IntheProblem,Fsentmoney,thuschangedhis
positionlikeAinQuestion15(actingonhisbelief;puttinghismoneywherehismouthis).Itisnot
necessarytousethelettertoprovethatthebookispornographic,andusingthewordsinthelettertoprove
thispointismoreproblematic.(Ifthelettersaysthebookisdirty,theletterprovesthispointbyasserting
it.WecantbesurethatFwasonlytryingtobuythebookbecauseitwasdirty,andcantevenbesure
thatCsideaofdirtycorrespondswiththelawsideaofobscenity.)Intheirperformativeaspect,
however,Fswordsinitiateatransactionandhavelogicalsignificanceinsuggestingthatthebookin
questionisonsaleatthisplace,andforthismorelimitedpurposethewordsinthelettershouldbeviewed
asnothearsay.
20.Nonhearsay.Absentotherindications,wecanassumethatHsnameandnumbercametobelodgedin
GscellphonedirectorybecauseGentereditthere.Thisentryisastatement(wordsthatcommunicateor
express)thatsaysattheveryleastthereisapersonHwhohasthisnumberthatIamlikelytocallsome
day.ButenteringthisinformationisalsoanactthatGwouldnotlikelydounlessheknewH(andthought
hemightcallHsomeday).AlsoGsdirectorycanbeviewedasnonhearsayifitisshownthatindeedH
existsandthathisphonenumbermatcheswhatGputinhiscellphone.IfGknewHsnameandnumber,
heprobablyknewH(themostlikelyexplanationforsuchknowledgeisGspriorcontactwithH),andthe
entryinthecellphonedirectoryresemblesSharonsstatementdescribingZindersunusualbedroomin
Problem3I(APapierMchMan)(page141).Ifincomingcallsareautomaticallyaddedtothe
recipientsdirectory,alongwithnames(perhapssuppliedbycallerID),theproblemiseveneasierthe
entryforHinGsdirectoryisproofthatHcalledGatsomepoint,whichisatleastsomeindicationthatG
knewH(eventhoughitcouldhavebeenamisdirectedcallorevenablindsolicitationofsomekindthese
beinglesslikelyexplanations).Infactcourtsgenerallytreatasnonhearsayevenhandwrittennotes
referringbynametoothers,asproofofsomeassociation.SeeMueller&Kirkpatrick,Evidence8.23(5th
ed.2012).
21.Hearsay.Jsreenactmentofaneventisanattempttocommunicatehowtheeventoccurred,anditis
hearsay.TheCarocasecomestomind(page115),wherethecooffenderpointedouthisdrugsourceto
lawenforcementofficersthisisassertiveconduct,henceastatementunderFRE801(a).
22.Nonhearsay.EitherLsstatementisaverbalactbecauseLastheowner/lendercansettheboundaries
ofauthoritybyutterance,orLsstatementproveseffectonlistenerKbecauseLsstatementbearsonwhat
Kreasonablyunderstoodaboutthescopeofhisauthoritytousethevehicle,whichtendstoprovethat
scope.ThisexampleissimilartoProblem3E(WhoseCorn?)(page136)orProblem3F(Imfromthe
GasCompany)(page137).
23.Nonhearsay.Lsletterannouncinghislastmonthisaverbalactcarryingoutthetermsofacontract,
presumablyaleasethatletsthetenantterminateononemonthnotice.TheexampleissimilartoProblem
3E(WhoseCorn?)(page136).

24.Nonhearsay.AsinCain(page125),noncomplaintbypersonswhomightbeexpectedtocomplainif
somethingwaswrongtendstoprovethatnothingwentwrong.Thefactthatsomecustomersdidcomplain
aboutadifferentproblemwiththestairsmakesthesituationmorepersuasivethanCainbyshowingthat
therewasaplacetowhichcomplaintscouldbetaken,andthatatleastsomepeoplewerebotheredenough
bytheconditionofthestairstosaysomething.
25.Nonhearsay.AsinProblem3I(APapierMchMan)(page141),hereisinsideknowledgefor
whichthemostplausibleexplanationistheexperiencethattheknowledgereflects.Whowouldknow
(correctly)thatStarkieonEvidenceisinthelockedcageinthebasementofthelawlibraryexcept
somebodywhohadbeentherebefore?Hereasinallsuchcasesthereisrisk(perhapsanothertoldJthat
Starkiecouldbefoundinthatlocation),buttheobscurityofthebooktoanyoneotherthananevidence
aficionadomakesthisexplanationimprobable.
26.ProbablyNonhearsay(closecase).Bothanswers(hearsayandnothearsay)canbedefended,with
aboutequalstrength.TheissuesareexploredwiththematchbookinProblem3G(EaglesRestBar&
Grill)(page138).Inanobvioussense,thelogoishearsayitsays,interalia,ThiscarisaPorscheand
itisofferedtoprovethatpoint(itishearsay).Butthehearsayobjectioncanbegottenaroundinthree
ways:First,wecanresorttoFRE902(7),whichsimplyslicesthroughthehearsayobjectionbysayingthat
wecantakecommerciallyaffixedlabelsasproofoforigin(thecarhasthePorschelogosoitwasmadeby
PorscheAG).Second,wecouldhavetestimonybyaknowledgeableperson(maybethemanagerofthe
localPorschedealership,maybeanofficerinPorscheAG)thateverycarthatcariesthelogoPorscheisa
Porsche.Third,wecanarguethatacarthatcarriesthatlogointheplacewherewewouldexpecttofind
themakeofthecarprobablyisthatmakebecauseouruniversalexperienceisthatonlyPorscheshavethat
label(justasonlyFordshavetheFordlogo,onlyJeepshavetheJeeplogo,andsoforth).
27.Nonhearsay.Hereisaverbalpartofanact,inwhichthewordsaccompanyingtransmissionofthe
checkdetermineitslegaleffectitisrentforApril,notpaymentfordamages.Whetherthewordscan
havetheintendedeffectmaybeanothermatter:IftenantOhadnotyetpaidhisrentforMarch,andifthe
leaseentitleslandlordPtotreatpaymentsascreditsagainsttheearliestpriorunpaidobligations,thenhe
maywellbepermittedtodoso.Thatdoesnotaffectthehearsayanalysis,thoughinsuchsituationsthe
wordsspokenbythetenantmightbeviewedasirrelevantorinsufficientonaccountofthesubstantive
principlethattheleasetermprevailsinthissituation.ThisexampleisexactlylikeProblem3E(Whose
Corn?)(page136).
28.Hearsay.HereOsbackwardlookingstatementisonlyanassertionaboutahistoricalfact.Itcomes
toolateandisunrelatedtotheact,soitcannotbeviewedasaverbalact.SimilartowhatCartwrightsaid
tothebankofficerinProblem3E(WhoseCorn?)(page136):Hesaidinsubstancethiscornismine,
whichsimplyassertedownershipunliketheearlierwordstoLord(insubstance,thiscornisyours),
whichconveyedtitle,thelaterstatement(thiscornismine)issimplyaclaimorassertionofownership.
29.ProbablyNonhearsay(closecase).Qsstatementtothenurseintheemergencyroom(forgodssake
dontletmyboyfriendRnearme!)isbestviewedasnonhearsaybecauseofitsstrongperformative
quality.QisaskingthenursetohelpheravoidcontactwithR,andcanreasonablyhopethatherwordswill
leadtothenursebarringthedoortokeepRawayorcallingsecurityifnecessary.Thenearestanalogyis
theevictionnoticeintheSingercase(page146).Onemightargueforhearsaytreatmentinthisway:IfQ
wasseekingmedicalcareforinjuriessustainedinarecentbeatingbyR(theproblemdoesnotsaythat),
thenincontextherwordsarereadilyunderstoodasaexpressingfearoffurtherharmandaspurposefully
statingthatRhadcausedtheharmthatbroughthertothehospital.Readthisway,herstatementislike
Obliques(theyoughttoputHigginsinjailforthis)inProblem3A(ThreeSeeARobbery)(page114),
orthestatementbythearrestedwomaninKrulewitch(Itwouldbebetterforustwogirlstotaketheblame
thanKaybecausehecouldntstandit,hecouldntstandtotakeit)(page155).

30.Nonhearsay.TheactofpointingbyS,alongwithherlivetestimonydescribingthesignificanceofthe
gesture(thatsthedirectionthetrainwascomingfrom)andthepoliceofficerstestimonydescribingthe
directiontowhichSwaspointing(west),tellsusbylivenonhearsaytestimonywhatexactlywasgoing
on.Analytically,thecaseisthesameasthebarmaidsstatementinProblem3G(EaglesRestBar&
Grill)(page138).Pointingamountstoastatementthatthetrainiscomingfromthedirectionindicated,so
itwouldbehearsayifprobativeworthdependedontakingitasassertingthatfact.ThatwouldhappenifS
didnotherselftestify.
31.Hearsay.AcreditreportbyDin&BroodstreetaddressesthecreditworthinessofHiTechCorp.Using
ittoprovethatpointisclassichearsay.ThecaseislikePlaintalksstatementinProblem3A(ThreeSeea
Robbery)thatHigginsistheonewhodidit(page114).
32.Nonhearsay.ThequestioniswhetherBankWestactedreasonably,andtheproofisthepoorcredit
ratingthatDin&BroodstreetgivestoHiTechCorp.Thecategoryiswordsofferedtoproveeffectupon
listener/reader.Whetherthebankwasreasonableinrefusingtoextendcreditispartlyafunctionof
informationcontainedinsuchreports.SeeProblem3F(ImfromtheGasCompany)(page137).
33.Nonhearsay.Thesituationisastandardillustrationofnonassertiveconduct.AsistrueinQuestion9
(puttingstudentinadvancedFrenchclass),theaction(assigningRtotheintensivecareunit)involves
verbalcomponentsoneexpectsanorderfromaphysiciantohospitalstaff.Butitisactionnonetheless,
changingthepositionofphysician,patientR,andhospital,andtheactionhasaphysicalaspecttoo(Rwill
beputintheintensivecarearea,andaspecialregimenofobservancewillbefollowedbystaff).
34.Nonhearsay.Vsactinreturningmoneygottenbymistakeisobviouslyactionthattendstoshow
honesty.Theaccompanyingwords(youvemadeamistake)areverbalactsinthesamesenseasthe
wordsthataccompanytheloanofthecar(Question22)andthewordsthataccompanypaymentofrent
(Question27)theygivemeaningtotheactofVinreturningthe$10bill.Heisnotleavingatip,paying
foranadditionalpurchase,orbeingcharitabletoastarvinghumanbeing;rather,Visrectifyingtheerrorby
theclerk.Hiswordshavethateffectnotsomuchbecausewecreditthemasassertions,butbecausewe
givelegalconsequencetothebehaviorofthepartyinsettlingtheirtransactionsthisway.Inthissense,
whatVdidresembleswhatCartwrightdidinpointingoutthecorntoLordinProblem3E(WhoseCorn?)
(page136).
35.Hearsay.ReputationofWrestsonwhatothersthinkofhimandsayabouthimoutofcourt,andhereit
isofferedtoprovethatWisthesortofpersonthatpeoplesayheis.Thus,reputationishearsayinthis
case,andwouldbetreatedassuch.ItisworthpointingoutthatFRE803(21)createsanexceptionpaving
thewayforsuchevidence.Inanothercase,iftheonlyquestioniswhatWsreputationis(notwhetherthe
reputationaccuratelydescribeshim),thehearsayissuewouldbeharder,andreputationmightbetreatedas
nonhearsay.Butthisconclusionsubsumestwohighlydebatablepoints,andeventhislimiteduseof
reputationasanendinitselfprobablyimplicatesthehearsaydoctrine:Thereasonisthatreputationcould
reasonablybedefinedaswhattheyactuallythinkofW.Thus,evenawitnesswhohastalkedtoevery
memberofthecommunity(allthosewhoarethey)isreportinghearsay.Ifeachmemberofthe
communityhastoldthewitnessthatWisviolent,hehastoldthewitnessthathethinksWisviolent,and
thesestatementsarehearsayifofferedtoprovewhateachpersonthinks.Again,ofcourse,FRE803(21)
essentiallyremovesthehearsayobjection.

First,itmeansdefiningreputationtobethenoisegeneratedinthecommunityaboutV:
Reputationiswhatthey(namelessthrongsthatcomprisethecommunity)sayaboutV,
withoutregardtowhattheybelievetobetrue.Second,itmeansassumingthatthewitnesswho
testifiesaboutwhattheysayistellingwhathehaspersonallyheardmanypeoplesayaboutV,
whenthewitnessmaywellbereportingwhatXandYandZtoldhimtheyheardyetotherssay,in
whichcasethewitnessisgivingindirecthearsay.Thispossibilitymakesthesituationsimilarto

Check(page128):ThereSpinellidescribedwhathesaid,whichconveyedsubsilentiowhatCali
hadtoldhim;herethewitnessdescribeswhatVsreputationis,whichconveyssubsilentiowhat
othershavetoldhimVsreputationis.