united-states evidence court
When is it ok to use tabloid news as evidence in court?
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfLlAVFJZXg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfLlAVFJZXg</a></p>
<p>When is it ok to use tabloid news as evidence in court? Am I crazy, or this is irrelevant, full of hearsays and speculations therefore these tabloids shouldn't be used as evidence or during questioning? What are the rules on this in the United States?</p>
<p>(<em>The linked video shows part of the cross-examination of Johnny Depp in his defamation case against Amber Heard.  The opposing lawyer reads the headlines from several newspaper articles critical of Depp and asks Depp if hje has correctly read the headlines of articles published on specific dates in specific publication. Depp replies that the lawyer has read  the headlines correctly in each case, but expresses disagreement with the content in various ways, saying things like &quot;as reported&quot; and &quot;but how did he know&quot;. The purpose of the questions is not made clear during the linked video, but the lawyer repeatedly emphasizes that these articles were published well before the allegedly defamatory statement.</em>)</p>

<p>It depends on what is of evidence for.</p>
<p>Normally, any newspaper, be it &quot;tabloid&quot; or &quot;respected&quot; or even the jurisdiction's &quot;paper of record&quot; would be considered hearsay; instead the source of the newspaper story should be called to testify instead.</p>
<p>However, there are a couple of exceptions to this, beyond normal hearsay exceptions, which basically boil down to when a certain thing being published is, in fact, the information being entered into evidence.</p>
<p>For example, in certain circumstances, the courts may accept &quot;service by publication&quot; for certain notices. An instance of this publication would be evidence that service by publication was carried out.</p>
<p>Another example, your link is to a lawsuit concerning defamation; defamation requires proving that the damaging falsehood was transmitted to a third party. So entering into evidence a tabloid that publishes such a damaging falsehood is evidence that it was transmitted to a third party (namely, the public).</p>

<p>Generally, a newspaper article (tabloid or not) cannot be used as evidence of the truth of statements made in it, unless the reporter is called to the stand and testifies as to the truth of the statements made in the article.</p>
<p>However, when it is relevant that a particular newspaper article was published on a particular date, evidence of that can be introduced.</p>
<p>For example, if it is important to show that a person knew a specific fact on a specific date, showing that the fact was published in a newspaper, and then showing that the person read that paper might be effective.</p>
<p>In a US defamation case, there are several specific reasons why it might be relevant to show that specific newspaper articles were published. For one thing, showing that there were multiple sources on which the author of the allegedly defamatory article relied can help defeat a claim that actual malice was present (an essential element of defamation in &quot;public figure&quot; cases in the US). For another, showing that the plaintiff's reputation was already poor can support a claim that a defamatory statement did little or no damage to the plaintiff's reputation, because there was no reputation to damage. Or showing that the specific accusation in the statement that is the subject of the suit was &quot;old news&quot; could support a claim that it did little or no further damage to the plaintiff's reputation. On the other hand, showing that other publications repeated the defamatory statement can help show just how damaging it was.</p>
<p>There is no special rule against the use of &quot;tabloid&quot; papers or other papers deemed less reliable. The fact that some statement was widely published, true or not, may be quite relevant.</p>

<h2>When it’s relevant</h2>
<p>Which is basically the criteria for all evidence: relevant evidence is admissible (subject to exclusionary rules), irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.</p>
<p>In a defamation case, what was communicated to the public is <em>extremely</em> relevant. The essence of defamation is that something untrue and damaging was communicated to a third-party: an allegedly defamatory newspaper article goes to all three elements - truthfulness, damaging and publication.</p>
