''Let them say more that like of hearsay well": implied assertions under the hearsay rule as expressed in the uniform evidence legislation

Abstract

The attempt to exclude implied assertions from the reach of the hearsay rule in the uniform evidence legislation has produced a provision that is both self-contradictory and at odds with modern analysis of the way in which language works — even with the commands of logic itself. Furthermore, the whole project of excluding implied assertions from the hearsay rule is based on the mistaken view that they must necessarily be more reliable than express ones. This article identifies the sub-categories of implied assertion, which depend on the process necessary to make the implication, and shows how that process, the use of language as a tool of communication and the hearsay rule all interact with one another.