Under what circumstances can hearsay evidence be admitted when the maker is not available in criminal trials?

In criminal trials, hearsay evidence can be admitted under specific circumstances, particularly when the individual who made the statement is not available to testify. Option B correctly identifies that hearsay can be deemed reliable and is against the maker's interest. This principle is rooted in the idea that a statement made by a declarant that is self-incriminating or detrimental to their interests carries sufficient indicia of reliability since it suggests that the declarant had no motivation to lie.

The rationale behind this is that individuals are generally unlikely to make statements that could be harmful to themselves unless those statements are true. This principle aligns with certain legal precedents that recognize that statements against interest are inherently more trustworthy.

In contrast, while credible eyewitness testimony (the first option) may bolster the case, it does not specifically address the admissibility of hearsay; rather, it deals with direct evidence. Documented official records (the third option) can indeed sometimes fall within exceptions to the hearsay rule but are distinct from statements made by individuals; they do not involve hearsay made by unavailable witnesses. The fourth option, which mentions corroboration by expert testimony, does not directly relate to the fundamental criteria for hearing hearsay but rather to the evaluation of the original statements' reliability.

Therefore