1. dispatches
  2. Hovind Trial Continues

Hovind Trial Continues

By stcynic on October 31, 2006.

After a delay due to one of Hovind's attorneys being sick, his trial has resumed. An IRS agent testified today that the Hovinds claim to have no money while withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from their accounts, always in amounts just under $10,000 to avoid having it reported. How convenient.

Tags
Uncategorized

More like this

Isn't this hearsay?
"Schneider said Kent Hovind refused to give a tax identification number to the First Baptist Church of Satsuma in Alabama, where he spoke. The church paid him a $738 fee. The tax ID number would have been used on a tax-reporting form."

Wouldn't someone from the church have to testify to this?

>>>Isn't this hearsay?
"Schneider said Kent Hovind refused to give a tax identification number to the First Baptist Church of Satsuma in Alabama, where he spoke. The church paid him a $738 fee. The tax ID number would have been used on a tax-reporting form."

If he has documentation, ie., written proof, I'm guessing it isn't hearsay, but it is a guess.

KeithB,

I read wikipedia's explanation of hearsay, and from what I gather, Schneider's statement isn't or shouldn't be, if he has proof that Hovind spoke at the church and collected a fee (he has the lack of an IRS form as further evidence). Also, it may not be hearsay because the affected party, in this case Hovind, is present to deny the allegations. Again, I'm certainly not an expert so if this is way off, please correct it.

Re Keith B

A statement made by a defendent out of court which is inculpatory is not considered hearsay but an admission against interest. A statement made by a defendent out of court which is exculpatory is considered hearsay.

In actual fact, the statement attributed to Hovind made out of court to a third party may be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. The exception is that it is admissible if it is inculpatory as it is considered an admission against interest. On the other hand, if it were exculpatory, it would not be admissible as it would be considered a self-serving statement.

Thanks, SLC.

I guess the point is that Hovind's lawyers can call the third party to testify if they believed that the statement was false.

Does it imply that the third party was deposed under oath?