Confrontation and Hearsay: A Critique of <i>Crawford</i>

Ho, H. L.

doi:10.1350/ijep.8.3.147.40870

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Introduction1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2012

2016

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Book1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 However, in the seminal case of Crawford v Washington , 4 decided in 2004, the US Supreme Court reimagined confrontation as a robust, self-standing right that transcends the plain of evidentiary rules. In this configuration, the right is strong but narrow: strong in the sense that it provides unqualified protection against the evidence of witnesses who have not been confronted; but narrow in that it applies only to the evidence of witnesses and does not bar the admission of non-testimonial hearsay (Ho, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibrating the right to confrontation

Heffernan

2016

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 'Confronting Confrontation', published in 2012, Professor Mike Redmayne elucidated a critique of the relatively strong confrontation rights embedded in the US constitutional and ECHR traditions. He argued in favour of an alternative, more narrow conceptualisation of confrontation as the positive right of an accused to cross-examine available witnesses. Drawing on some of the threads stitched in 'Confronting Confrontation', the present article explores the challenge of applying the ECHR confrontation right in common law courts. Particular emphasis is placed on the need within the Strasbourg doctrine to assess the potential significance of the evidence to the prosecution's case at trial.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%