A view (by jury or, in bench trial, by trial judge) is evidence.

United States v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding that "the Confrontation Clause present[ed] no bar to reliance on the absence of certain information from the Board meeting minutes to....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars the introduction against a criminal defendant of testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant unless (i) the absent declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and (ii) the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the absent declarant prior to trial.

United States v. Moses, 15 F.3d 774, 777-778 (8th Cir. 1994) (upholding trial court's admission of the Finney's statement [which explained Officer Jasso's action] as an excited utterance because "[g]iven the seriousness....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for an utterance that relates to a startling event or condition and is made while the declarant -- the maker of the statement -- is excited as a result of the starling event or condition.

Cf. United States v. Rivera-Hernandez, 497 F.3d 71, 81-82 (1st Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's statement to his father [about his justification for his need of fraudulent invoices] as a state-of-mind....To fall within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, a statement by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must be contemporaneous with the mental state or event sought to be proven.