在美國之刑事訴訟中傳聞證據一向是重要的問題,美國之聯邦最高法院之案例決定了有關證據可以被允許之標準。依照美國聯邦憲法增修條款第六條賦與刑事被告有與不利於已之證人對質之權利。因此,在Crawford v. Washington一案中美國聯邦最高法院認為過去之傳聞證據之例外被允許之規則,有違背刑事被告之與證人對質之權利。因此設定新的標準,認為在刑事案件中。任何法院外之證據之陳述,不論其是對公務員或是在偵查中所為,必須陳述之人不能到庭才能適用傳聞證據例外被允許之規則,否則此證人必須被反詰問或被告曾有反詰問之機會。此案例為傳聞證據之被允許設下相當之限制。不少的法院認為Crawford案中,法院並未明確地解釋法院外之證言之意義。因此,被害人打911電話向接線生報告之事情,並非認為係法院外之陳述。多數法院均以此作為避免Crawford之標準之手段。而在Davis v. Washington最高法院認為被害人對於被告之行為而向911緊急中心所為之陳述之錄音帶,並非法院外之證據,因此無須受被告之反詰問之保護,本文就此程之發展及法院之判例作一介紹及評論。
The admission of hearsay evidence is one of the most important issues in U.S. Criminal justice. The U.S. supreme court had made cases setting up standards for the admission of hearsay. The six amendments of the U.S. constitution grants to the criminal accused the right to confront witness against him. The U.S. supreme cont had made rules governing the rules admitting hearsay evidence. The supreme cont said it would violate the defendant's right of confrontation by applying the exception of the hearsay evidence unless the declarant was subject to cross-examination and the declarant was unavailable at court. The Crawford case had put substantial restrictions on admitting hearsay evidence. Many courts thought that the said case did not offer a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a testimonial out -of -court statement therefore some courts had interpreted the contents of a 911 call was not an out-of-court statement. Most courts used such an interpretation as a way of avoiding the applying of Crawford rules. In Davis v. Washington the court said that the call to report an emergency was not out -of -court testament, therefore was not subject to confrontation clause protection,. This article discusses the procedural developments and the court decisions regarding the admission of hearsay evidence.