How should oral and written statements be treated in terms of cross-examination and authenticity?

• A. Oral statements cannot be cross-examined.
• B. Written statements are not subject to authentication standards.
• C. Both require voluntariness, authentication, and can be cross-examined; oral statements are often recorded, while written statements are formalized and signed.
• D. Oral statements do not require any authentication.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that both oral and written statements must be treated with authenticity and can be challenged through cross-examination, and both must be voluntary to be admissible. For oral statements, recording is common and helps preserve exactly what was said, making cross-examination about accuracy and reliability more effective. Written statements are formalized, typically signed, and must be authenticated to verify that the document is genuine and that the person indeed made the statement as described. This combination—voluntariness, authentication, and the ability to cross-examine—ensures that statements are reliable and properly probed in court. The other options contradict this reality: oral statements can be cross-examined, written statements do require authentication, and oral statements generally do not skip authentication requirements.