Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a
de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:
Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
Citation given earlier.
Where there is a direct line of communication as you quoted mentioning a citation I have also seen, and then it does not fit into the legal nomenclature or wide scope of hearsay. I'm aware of this citation which I have seen before.
What you have quoted is where that communication passes through one party to delegate by another, authorised by another or employed by another. Again no one said this would be hearsay in such circumstances.
If you are quoting law or government procedure of any country, definitions do not change but clarity is necessary.
This differs from someone claiming to over hear from someone who heard from another. The citation you mentioned shows an unbroken chain of communication from the originator who authorised repetition demonstrably through an authorised party.
This is different than someone simply passing on something they heard or overheard through another. The citation you provided provides one good example of this.
However admissibility of hearsay as defined is in certain situations admissible to the US (and English) courts.
Each case has its own circumstances as also modified in case law (or precedent as in the USA).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html
The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault