A huge Kenworth truck pulls up to an intersection regulated by traffic lights and stops in its right-handed lane. An open Maserati sports car pulls up beside the truck in the left lane and stops, and Phillip behind the wheel guns his engine. The traffic light across the street is not working and Phillip cannot see the light nearest him, above and to his right, nor can he see cross traffic coming from his right , as the bulk Kenworth is in the way.

The Kenworth begins to go forward, and Phillip in the Maserati shoots into the intersection, where he is broadsided by a blue car crossing from its right driven by Hillary. A lawsuit follows for personal injuries and property damage, with Philip and Hillary each claiming the other was at fault. As proof that he had the light in his favor, Philip offers to testify that the truck pulled forward across the pedestrian lane into the intersection before he (Phillip) stepped on the accelerator. Hillary objects, her lawyer arguing that evidence of the behavior of the truck driver at the intersection is hearsay, when offered to prove that the light had turned green for Philip. The trial judge is astonished "Hearsay? What in the world are you thinking of counsel, there isn't any assertion in sight here, Overruled". You are Hillary's lawyer. Advance her argument that the evidence of the movement of the Kenworth is hearsay, when offered for the stated purpose . For the moment Do Not try to apply Rule 801. Just explain to the judge exactly what logical steps are required to get from the movement of the truck to the conclusion that the light was green for Philip, and why those steps involve the same risks that lead us to exclude an out-of-court statement (the "lights turned green") when offered to prove what it asserts.