What must evidence be to overcome the hearsay rule?

For evidence to be admissible and overcome the hearsay rule, it must typically consist of statements made by a witness that are based on their direct perception of facts. This means that the person giving testimony must have personally observed, heard, or otherwise directly experienced the event or information they are recounting. The rationale behind this requirement is that direct perception allows for the credibility and reliability of the evidence to be assessed in court. If a witness was not present or did not perceive the event firsthand, their testimony may be more prone to inaccuracies and misunderstandings, thus necessitating the hearsay rule to exclude such statements to maintain the integrity of the evidence presented in court.

Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and it is generally excluded due to concerns about the reliability of such statements. Therefore, having evidence that is based on the witness's direct experience helps ensure that the evidence is credible and can be scrutinized through cross-examination and other judicial processes.

This requirement would not be met if the evidence were merely an account relayed by a witness who did not personally perceive the events, which is a key reason why other options, such as those suggesting multiple witnesses or representations in documents, do not