Abstract
This article evaluates the credibility and evidentiary value of witness testimony and cross-examination conducted remotely in a criminal trial. It begins by discussing the difference between a typical criminal trial/proceeding and a criminal trial conducted remotely through video-link via Zoom, Google Meet, or other online video-meeting platforms. Furthermore, it elaborates on the principles of a fair trial. It makes a critical inquiry as to whether the parameters of a fair trial are met if the trial is conducted remotely. The article aims to establish that while remote criminal trials can serve as an alternative to regular criminal trials, this benefit does come with a significant cost. It is for the judges and jury to decide whether the benefit outweighs the price through a cost-benefit analysis of the entire scenario. The main argument behind discouraging the trend of remote criminal trials is its impact on the evidentiary value of witness testimony and cross-examination. These two components are considered to be the essence of a criminal trial. Lastly, it discusses the impact of remote criminal trials on the evidentiary value of these components in light of the comparative analysis of procedural formalities and requirements.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
