Witness Evidence in Pre-Trial and Trial Procedure

doi:10.1017/9781009037136.008

8 - Witness Evidence in Pre-Trial and Trial Procedure

from Part II - Criminal Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022

John D. Jackson and

Thomas Weigend

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Judge Kosovo Specialist Chambers, The Hague
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Witness evidence continues to occupy a central place in criminal trials. Laypersons who have witnessed crimes are called to narrate their experiences in court and experts are frequently called as witnesses to explain, interpret and justify an ever-expanding range of different types of forensic evidence collected before trial.1 Given concerns about the reliability of witness evidence, it is not surprising that it has been much discussed and is specially mentioned in the various conventions and constitutional provisions guaranteeing a fair trial.2 Much attention has focused on the different methods for controlling the manner in which such evidence is heard and challenged through the lens of the adversarial and inquisitorial categories that have long dominated and polarised comparative scholarship.3 More recently, however, it has been argued that although the methods for questioning witnesses still differ greatly, a convergence between common law and civil law systems is occurring as systems adapt towards adversarial influences and human rights requirements.4

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 260 - 299

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Advisory Group on Video Evidence, Report, London, Home Office (1988).Google Scholar

Allen, R., Kock, S., Riecherberg, K. and Rosen, D. T., ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure: A Plea for More Details and Fewer Generalities in Comparative Scholarship’, Northwestern University Law Review, 82 (1988), 705–62.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, Vol. III: International Criminal Procedure, Oxford University Press (2016).Google Scholar

Ambos, K. European Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2018).CrossRef Google Scholar

Ambos, K. and Heinze, A., ‘Abbreviated Procedures in Comparative Criminal Procedure: A Structural Approach with a View to International Criminal Procedure’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Abbreviated Criminal Procedures for Core International Crimes, Brussels, Torkel Opsahl (2017), 27–100.Google Scholar

Bachmaier, L., ‘Rights and Methods to Challenge Evidence and Witnesses in Civil Law Jurisdictions’, in Brown, D., Turner, J. I. and Weisser, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 841–55.Google Scholar

Bond, C. F. and DePaulo, B. M., ‘Accuracy of Deception Judgments’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2006), 214.Google Scholar

Cape, E., ‘Transposing the EU Directive on the Right to Information: A Firecracker or a Damp Squib?’, Criminal Law Review (2015), 48–67.Google Scholar

Combs, N., Fact-Finding without Facts, Cambridge University Press (2010).Google Scholar

Damaška, M., ‘Of Hearsay and Its Analogues’, Minnesota Law Review, 76 (1992), 425–58.Google Scholar

Damaška, M. Evaluation of Evidence: Pre-Modern and Modern Approaches, Cambridge University Press (2019).Google Scholar

Dennis, I., ‘The Right to Confront Witnesses: Meanings, Myths and Human Rights’, Criminal Law Review (2010), 255–74.Google Scholar

Frase, R. S. and Weigend, T., ‘German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions?’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 18 (1995), 317–60.Google Scholar

Giannoulopoulos, D., ‘“North of the Border and across the Channel”: Custodial Legal Assistance Reforms in Scotland and France’, Criminal Law Review (2013), 369–84.Google Scholar

Giannoulopoulos, D. ‘Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Law Reform and Comparative Law: A Tale of the Right to Custodial Legal Assistance in Five Countries’, Human Rights Law Review, 16 (2016), 103–29.Google Scholar

Giannoulopoulos, D. Improperly Obtained Evidence in Anglo-American and Continental Law, Oxford and London, Hart and Bloomsbury (2019).Google Scholar

Goldstein, A. S. and Marcus, M., ‘The Myth of Judicial Supervision in Three “Inquisitorial” Systems: France, Italy and Germany’, Yale Law Journal, 87 (1977), 240–83.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heger, M., ‘Öffentlichkeit, Mündlichkeit, Unmittelbarkeit’, in Hilgendorf, E., Kudlich, H. and Valerius, B. (eds.), Handbuch des Strafrechts, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2020), Vol. 7, 461–501.Google Scholar

Hodgson, J., The Metamorphosis of Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2020).CrossRef Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D., ‘In Defence of a Voluntariness Doctrine for Confessions: The Queen v. Johnston Revisited’, Irish Jurist, 21 (1986), 208–46.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D., ‘Recent Developments in Criminal Evidence’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 40 (1989), 105–30.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D. ‘Silence and Proof: Extending the Boundaries of Criminal Proceedings in the United Kingdom’, International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 5 (2001), 145–73.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D. ‘Cultural Barriers on the Road to Providing Suspects with Access to a Lawyer’, in Colson, R. and Field, S. (eds.), EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity, Cambridge University Press (2016), 181–98.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D. ‘Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence’, Modern Law Review, 79 (2016), 987–1018.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D. and Summers, S. J., The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence, Cambridge University Press (2012).Google Scholar

Judicial College, Crown Court Compendium: Part 1 (2018).Google Scholar

Kreicker, H. ‘§ 253’, in Knauer, C., Kudlich, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Kudlich, H. and Schuhr, J. C., ‘§ 252’, ‘§ 253’, in Satzger, H. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Strafprozessordnung, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Langbein, J. H., ‘Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany’, University of Chicago Law Review, 41 (1974), 43–98.Google Scholar

Langbein, J. H. ‘Trashing the German Advantage’, Northwestern University Law Review, 82 (1988), 763–84.Google Scholar

Langbein, J. H. and Weinreb, L., ‘Continental Criminal Procedure: “Myth” and Reality’, Yale Law Journal, 87 (1978), 1549–69.CrossRef Google Scholar

Langer, M., ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, Harvard International Law Journal, 55 (2007), 1–64.Google Scholar

Langer, M. ‘The Long Shadow of the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Categories’, in Dubber, M. D. and Hörnle, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2014), 887–912.Google Scholar

Law Commission, Evidence in Criminal Proceedings and Related Matters (1995), Consultation Paper No. 138.Google Scholar

Law Commission, Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Matters (1997), Report No. 245.Google Scholar

Maffei, S., The Right to Confrontation in Europe: Absent, anonymous and vulnerable witnesses, 2nd edn, Groningen, Europa Law Publishing (2012).Google Scholar

McConville, M. and Marsh, L., The Myth of Judicial Independence, Oxford University Press (2020).Google Scholar

Meyer-Goßner, L. and Schmitt, B., Strafprozessordnung, 63rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Ministry of Justice, Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, London, Ministry of Justice (2016).Google Scholar

Ministry of Justice, Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, London, Ministry of Justice (2019).Google Scholar

Munday, R. (ed.), Cross & Tapper on Evidence, 9th edn, Oxford University Press (2018).CrossRef Google Scholar

Munro, V., The Impact of the Use of Pre-Recorded Evidence on Juror Decision Making, Edinburgh, Scottish Government (2018).Google Scholar

Nance, D., ‘Understanding Responses to Hearsay: An Extension of the Comparative Analysis’, Minnesota Law Review, 76 (1992), 459–72.Google Scholar

Owusu-Bempah, A., Defendant Participation in the Criminal Process, Routledge (2017).Google Scholar

Plotnikoff, J. and Woolfson, R., ‘“Kicking and Screaming”: The Slow Road to Best Evidence’, in Spencer, J. R. and Lamb, M. (eds.), Children and Cross-Examination: Time to Change the Rules?, Oxford and London, Hart and Bloomsbury (2012), 21–41.Google Scholar

Roberts, A., ‘The Frailties of Human Memory and the Accused’s Right to Accurate Procedures’, Criminal Law Review (2019), 912–33.Google Scholar

Roberts, P. (ed.), Expert Evidence and Scientific Proof in Criminal Trials, Farnham, UK, Ashgate (2011).Google Scholar

Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A., Criminal Evidence, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2010).Google Scholar

Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, Report, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1980).Google Scholar

Sentencing Council, Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, London, Sentencing Council (2017).Google Scholar

Spencer, J. R., Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, 2nd edn, Oxford, Hart (2014).Google Scholar

Spencer, J. R. and Lamb, M. E., Children and Cross-Examination. Time to Change the Rules?, Oxford and London, Hart and Bloomsbury (2012).Google Scholar

Sukumar, D., Hodgson, J. and Wade, K., ‘Behind Closed Doors: Live Observations of Current Police Station Disclosure Practices and Lawyer-Client Consultations’, Criminal Law Review (2016), 900–14.Google Scholar

Summers, S. J., Fair Trials: The European Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Continental Cures for American Ailments: European Criminal Procedure as a Model for Law Reform’, in Morris, N. and Tonry, M. (eds.), Crime and Justice, Chicago University Press (1980), Vol. 2, 381–428.Google Scholar

Weigend, T. ‘Defense Rights in European Systems under the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights’, in Brown, D., Turner, J. I. and Weisser, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 165–88.Google Scholar

Wigmore, J. H., A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Chadbourn revision, Little, Brown (1974), Vol. 5.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, A. S., The Principles of Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press (1989).Google Scholar