According to Taiwan’s practice, the prosecutor’s record of interrogation is the key to hearsay rule exceptions, and the mechanism to safeguard the right of objectional examination will be insufficient when no record has been made. When this type of hearsay outside of trial is used as evidence, reliable assurance that this evidence is true is entirely lost. This paper believes that regardless of whether the accounts given by witnesses at a trial are consistent with the prosecutor’s record of interrogation, there are no grounds for relying solely on the fact that the defendant has already exercised the right of objectional examination to hastily claim that prior accounts outside of the trial possess evidential ability. In addition, whether or not a declarant is required to take an oath is an investigative choice for the prosecutor, and even when a declarant is not required to take an oath, as in cases when special situations exist, it may possibly be permissible to make this a hearsay rule exception. When a statement is made and an oath taken in the witnesss identity during an investigation, this merely satisfies the statutory elements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and we cannot use reverse inference to rule out the hearsay character of the statement, ensure its reliability, and make it hearsay exception!