John Roach, Esq. | March 17, 2026 | Attorney Tips \ California Law
The People v. Sanchez Decision: A Turning Point for Expert Testimony and Hearsay
The California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 fundamentally changed how hearsay intersects with expert testimony in California courts. Although Sanchez arose from a gang enhancement case, its principles apply broadly to civil litigation — including personal injury cases where defense experts routinely attempt to smuggle damaging hearsay into evidence through their opinions on causation, medical history, and damages. Every plaintiff’s attorney litigating serious injury claims in California needs to understand both how to use Sanchez offensively and how to defend against it when the defense turns the same rule against you.
I’m John J. Roach, a San Francisco personal injury attorney with extensive trial experience. I handle catastrophic injury, traumatic brain injury, and wrongful death cases throughout the Bay Area, and I accept referrals from other attorneys on serious personal injury matters. This post covers the practical evidentiary strategies I use to manage hearsay issues at the motion in limine stage, in depositions, and at trial.
What Sanchez Actually Holds — and Why It Matters in Civil Cases
Sanchez draws a critical line between two types of expert knowledge. An expert can testify about general background knowledge — the general state of the medical literature on concussion, the biomechanics of rear-end collisions, the standard of care in a given specialty. What the expert cannot do is relay case-specific hearsay facts as true, unless those facts are independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception.
In the personal injury context, this means a defense medical expert cannot testify that “according to the records from Dr. X, the plaintiff complained of pre-existing back pain for two years before this accident” if Dr. X is not testifying and those records are not independently authenticated and admitted. The defense cannot use the expert as a vehicle to get damaging, unauthenticated hearsay in front of the jury without laying proper foundation. Sanchez gives plaintiff’s counsel a powerful tool to block exactly that tactic — and it requires vigilance at every stage of the case to use it effectively.
Hearsay as a Shield: Blocking Damaging Defense Evidence
Defense teams in serious injury cases frequently attempt to introduce selective excerpts from medical records — an offhand patient comment about prior symptoms, a single entry referencing a pre-existing condition, a triage note taken out of context — to minimize the claim. If it is hearsay without an applicable exception, it is inadmissible. The key is moving to exclude it before it reaches the jury.
File motions in limine early and specifically. Do not wait for trial to raise Sanchez objections. A well-drafted motion in limine can prevent the defense from even referencing inadmissible hearsay in opening statement. I have successfully moved to exclude unauthenticated records containing multi-layer hearsay, forcing the defense to approach the bench for an offer of proof before referencing the materials. That procedural posture — requiring the defense to prove foundation before the jury hears a word — changes the entire dynamic of how the evidence comes in.
Break records down layer by layer. Medical records are often multi-layer hearsay — a patient statement recorded by a nurse, reviewed by a doctor, and summarized in a discharge report. Each layer requires its own foundation or exception. The patient statement may qualify under Evidence Code Section 1250 (state of mind) or Section 1253 (medical diagnosis). The provider’s opinion may need to come in through live or deposition testimony. Analyze every document and challenge each element separately. Defense counsel frequently skips this analysis, which creates objection opportunities at trial.
Invoke Sanchez to limit expert reliance on unproven facts. When the defense expert’s report relies on records that have not been authenticated or admitted, depose the expert on the specific hearsay sources underlying each opinion. At trial, move to strike any opinion that depends on case-specific facts from unadmitted hearsay. Require authentication via live testimony before those materials can form the foundation of an expert opinion.
Hearsay as a Sword: Getting Your Evidence In
Hearsay rules work both directions. The same framework that lets you block defense hearsay can be used strategically to get favorable evidence admitted through proper foundation.
Build foundation through depositions. Depose records custodians early to establish the business records exception under Evidence Code Section 1271 — regularity of preparation, made at or near the time of the event, kept in the ordinary course of business. Then depose treating providers to convert their chart entries and opinions into admissible testimony. A surgeon deposed on causation early in the case locks in that testimony and eliminates the foundation problem entirely.
Use deposition transcripts strategically. Sanchez restricts hearsay, but it does not restrict properly noticed deposition testimony. A treating physician’s deposition transcript, read into evidence or played via video, is not hearsay — it is admissible prior testimony. This is one of the most reliable ways to get expert medical opinion in front of the jury without the foundation risk that comes with relying on the records alone.
Selective redaction of exhibits. When a medical record contains both admissible and inadmissible content, prepare redacted versions in advance. Remove the inadmissible hearsay while preserving the factual observations — documented swelling, recorded pain scores, objective imaging findings — that support your damages case. Having clean exhibits ready before trial allows you to pivot quickly when the defense challenges foundation.
One tactical note from my own practice: I generally do not attempt to admit medical records as exhibits. I have found that getting evidence before the jury through live or deposition witness testimony is significantly more persuasive than paper records. Jurors connect with a treating surgeon describing what they observed and why they made the decisions they did. The records become scaffolding — authentication infrastructure — rather than the primary evidence themselves.
Trial and Pre-Trial Strategies
These are the practical steps I apply in serious injury litigation to manage hearsay issues from intake through verdict.
Early record review for hearsay vulnerabilities. Analyze every medical document in the file for hearsay issues before filing. Know which records can be admitted through business record foundation, which require live testimony, and which contain damaging content the defense will try to use through their expert.
Strategic deposition sequencing. Depose defense experts on the hearsay sources underlying their opinions before trial. Pin them to specific record citations so you can challenge foundation precisely at trial rather than arguing generally about hearsay.
Bench conference protocols. When the defense attempts to elicit hearsay through an expert, object immediately and request a bench conference. Require an offer of proof before any testimony reaches the jury. This forces the defense to establish foundation on the record, which often they cannot do, and creates a clean appellate record if needed.
Expert preparation on Sanchez limits. Prepare your own experts to testify only about general knowledge and facts that have been independently admitted. Walk through their anticipated testimony in advance to identify any reliance on unadmitted hearsay sources — and either lay proper foundation for those sources or redirect the opinion to admitted evidence.
If you are handling a serious personal injury case in the Bay Area and want to discuss the evidentiary strategy, or if you have a case you would like to refer, call me at (415) 851-4557 or visit my attorney referrals page. I work on a contingency fee basis and handle referrals professionally.
Frequently Asked Questions: Hearsay in California Personal Injury Cases
California Evidence Code Section 1200 defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless a specific statutory exception applies. In personal injury cases, hearsay issues arise most commonly around medical records, treating provider opinions, and expert testimony relying on unauthenticated records. Each category requires separate analysis — medical records are often multi-layer hearsay requiring multiple exceptions or a business records foundation under Section 1271.
Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 holds that experts can testify about general background knowledge but cannot relay case-specific hearsay facts as true unless those facts are independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception. In personal injury cases, this means a defense medical expert cannot use their opinion as a vehicle to introduce damaging, unauthenticated hearsay from medical records — and plaintiff’s counsel can move to exclude any opinion that depends on case-specific facts from unadmitted hearsay sources.
Yes — and often multi-layer hearsay. A medical record typically contains patient statements (layer one), provider observations and opinions (layer two), and summary conclusions (layer three). Each layer may require a separate exception or foundation. Patient statements about present symptoms may qualify under Evidence Code Section 1250. The record itself may qualify as a business record under Section 1271. Provider opinions on causation generally require live or deposition testimony to be admissible.
California Evidence Code Section 1271 provides a hearsay exception for records made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act or event recorded, kept in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity, and qualified through testimony from the custodian or another qualified witness. Medical records typically satisfy these requirements, but the business records exception admits the document — it does not independently authenticate the opinions or conclusions within it. Causation opinions and diagnostic conclusions still generally require live or deposition testimony from the authoring provider.
A motion in limine is a pre-trial motion asking the court to exclude specific evidence before trial begins. Filing targeted motions in limine to exclude unauthenticated hearsay prevents the defense from referencing inadmissible materials in opening statement or eliciting them through witnesses before an objection can be made. A well-drafted motion in limine also forces the defense to establish foundation for challenged evidence in advance — often revealing that they cannot do so — and creates a clean record for appeal if the court rules incorrectly.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.