The doctrine of hearsay evidence has been an integral part of the criminal process in the countries of Anglo-Saxon law for centuries, in particular in the United States of America. The establishment of clear criteria for the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the definition of exceptions to the general rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence became an important stage in the development, systematization, and unification of this legal institution. However, its practical application is not without difficulties. Disputes between scholars and practitioners regarding its epistemological significance and potential violation of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals do not subside, reflecting the complexity and multifaceted functioning of this institution. Article 97 “Hearsay Evidence” was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine only in 2012. As a result, the doctrine of criminal procedure law has not yet developed a consistent concept for its application in criminal proceedings, and the practice of its enforcement is still in the formative stage. Accordingly, the analysis of effective mechanisms for the collection, use, and evaluation of this type of evidence in different legal systems is of considerable practical value, as it facilitates the adoption of best practices and the improvement of domestic law enforcement practice. The article highlights the key stages in the evolution of doctrinal concepts of hearsay in the US criminal process, tracing its development from early Anglo-American law to modern legislative and judicial requirements. Within this historical context, the fundamental principles and rules governing its application are examined. The study outlines key challenges and issues in contemporary law enforcement practice in the United States, particularly the ambiguity surrounding the definition of the relevant concept, the lack of consistency in judicial practice, and the resolution of a significant proportion of criminal cases at the pretrial stage, which may lead to unjustified decisions due to the inadequate evaluation of evidence. It is emphasized that the rules governing hearsay evidence are undergoing continuous refinement to address existing gaps and inconsistencies within judicial practice. This process also aims to ensure their adaptation to the ongoing social and technological transformations shaping modern society.
O. M. Mykytyuk (Sun,) studied this question.