Testigos no disponibles y confrontación: fundamentos epistémicos y no epistémicos

Rovatti, Pablo
The author criticizes an extended thesis on the right of confrontation, according to which the lack of an opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness unavailable for trial would preclude the admission of the prior statement. Epistemic arguments are analyzed in the first place, but the paper´s central contribution deals with non-epistemic reasons underlying confrontation right. In this context, the paper advances reasons for being skeptical about free-standing evidencial rights. Then, it develops an analysis about the ways in which confrontation has been theorized from a non-epistemic perspective. The author concludes that these theoretical proposals are not sufficiently compelling to support a strong confrontation right ​
This document is licensed under a Creative Commons:Attribution (by) Creative Commons by