• Users Online: 285
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 40-48

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


Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100084, China

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Xingyi Wang
China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100084
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_78_17

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3399    
    Printed127    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded250    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal