Confrontation clause after Crawford and its impact on the admissibility of forensic evidence: A comparative study on the United States and China

Crawford is a watershed case separating hearsay exceptions and confrontation. Overruling Roberts, Crawford established a new bright-line test for Confrontation Clause. Testimonial out-of-court statements, whether reliable or not, are inadmissible unless the prosecution has shown: (a) the declarant i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of forensic science and medicine Vol. 4; no. 1; pp. 40 - 48
Main Author Wang, Xingyi
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Mumbai Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd 01.01.2018
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
Subjects
Comparative literature
Confrontation
Crawford
Criminal investigation
Criminal procedure
Deoxyribonucleic acid
DNA
Evidence (Law)
Federal court decisions
Forensic sciences
Genetic testing
Laws, regulations and rules
Legal reform
Roberts
testimonial out-of-court statements
Witnesses
United States > US
China
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Crawford is a watershed case separating hearsay exceptions and confrontation. Overruling Roberts, Crawford established a new bright-line test for Confrontation Clause. Testimonial out-of-court statements, whether reliable or not, are inadmissible unless the prosecution has shown: (a) the declarant is unavailable and (b) the defense has a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Applying Crawford's primary purpose test, testimonial out-of-court forensic reports (usually as affidavits) might not be admissible. However, Crawford underlined that the Confrontation Clause has its independent procedural values and other nonepistemic functions.
ISSN:2349-5014
2455-0094
DOI:10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_78_17