We spoke about the general definition of hearsay and the confrontation clause. Sometimes, a prosecutor will try to elicit hearsay indirectly by allowing the jury to infer what was said to the witness. It is important to be on your toes for such an opportunity to object. This can happen in a simple case with a Quakertown DUI lawyer or a complicated case with a Bucks County Criminal Defense Attorney.
Indirect or concealed hearsay is a nice little trick to trying to reveal what was said. Here's an example: Commonwealth v. Farris from 1977. The Commonwealth carefully avoided any direct hearsay issues by simply asking, "as a result of talking with Gary Moore [who just happened to be an alleged co-conspirator], what did you do?" The answer was, "I arrested Emanuel Farris." This is indirect hearsay. Essentially, the Commonwealth is implying that Gary Moore pointed to Farris as a co-conspirator and this was inadmissible hearsay.
In Commonwealth v. Thomas from 1990, the judge found that "improper oblique narrative" was hearsay. In that case, the prosecutor lead the police officer to testify that as a result of his interview of a witness (who was unavailable for cross examination), he proceeded to arrest the defendant.
Information received by police to merely show their action is generally not hearsay. For example, hearing the content of police radio calls is generally not hearsay (see Commonwealth v. Sneed from 1987). However, even this exception has....well...exceptions. The Supreme Court has indicated that the police conduct exception should not be used as a pretext (see Commonwealth v. Palsa from 1989).
Thus, when a prosecutor says, "Don't tell me what your conversation was with Mr. X, but tell me what you did as a result," you better be ready to object.
Please see the rule against hearsay for further advisement: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/225/chapter8/s802.html