View this case and other resources at:
Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, Subramanium (the “Appellant”), appealed a sentence of death for being in possession of twenty rounds of ammunition without lawful authority.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who was not himself called as a witness might or might not be hearsay. It was hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence was to establish the truth of what was contained in the statement. It was not hearsay and was admissible when it was proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was not made.”
Issue. Were the alleged statements made to the terrorists’ hearsay, or should have they been admissible?
Held. They should have been admissible. The court observed that “[s]tatements could have been to the appellant by the terrorists which, whether true or not, if they had been believed by the appellant, might, within the meaning of