Consider a court system in which only firsthand witness testimony is admissible. How would this rule affect court proceedings?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Since the burden of proof falls solely on the prosecutor and the state, many cases would be unable to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Expert witnesses would not have firsthand witnessing of the charge and therefore under this scenario would not be able to be admitted.Primarily, such exceptions were based upon the notion that certain statements were reliable on their face and upon a gradual recognition that a dismissal of all nonsworn statements did not serve the interest of justice. For example, society was prepared to accept that while the swearing of an oath necessarily increased the veracity of witnesses, other nonsworn statements might be equally reliable. Statements issued by those declarants preparing to meet their god or those that were unprovoked and made during the excitement of an incident were held to be reliable. Over time, this recognition gradually resulted in various codified exceptions to the hearsay rule. Court cases would effectively be crippled and criminals would be found not guilty.