Poetry in Motion: The Federal Rules of Evidence and Forward Progress as an Imperative

By Capra, Daniel J.; Richter, Liesa L. | Boston University Law Review, October 2019 | Go to article overview

Poetry in Motion: The Federal Rules of Evidence and Forward Progress as an Imperative


Capra, Daniel J., Richter, Liesa L., Boston University Law Review


Introduction

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was known to say of the Federal Rules of Evidence that they should rarely, if ever, be altered.1 In counseling against efforts to polish the Rules to perfection, Chief Justice Rehnquist gave voice to a valid and enduring principle: the Federal Rules of Evidence are purposely concise and were designed to be nimble. Practitioners can commit them to memory for instant deployment in the quick-draw contest that traditionally has been the American trial. Think seasoned trial titans like Clarence Darrow crossexamining William Jennings Bryan in the groundbreaking Scopes case in the hot Tennessee summer of 1925.2 Excessive tinkering with evidence rules would impose significant dislocation costs on both judges and courtroom advocates, who would be required to adapt constantly and to expend resources litigating new language injected into long-standing evidentiary doctrines. Incessant amendments would also raise the specter of unintended consequences, disrupting the settled operation of the Rules around them. Chief Justice Rehnquist's admonition was rooted in these traditional assumptions about the use of the Evidence Rules and in the inefficiencies that imprudent and excessive reform efforts would generate.3

But the rigid rejection of efforts to modify the Rules also poses significant risks to the trial process. Reform is an important ingredient in any healthy body of rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence must continue to evolve to retain their utility and contemporary viability. Allowing the Rules to become fixed in their 1975 iteration threatens to undermine the goals of uniformity, fairness, and simplicity that they were designed to foster. Amendments to the Evidence Rules are thus imperative to protect the uniformity the Rules were designed to achieve, to ensure the contemporary relevance of evidentiary standards enacted in 1975, to resolve ambiguities, and even to prevent genuine injustice. Not every amendment designed to achieve these goals will thwart the settled expectations of experienced trial lawyers. When drafted carefully and vetted thoroughly, amendments to the Evidence Rules should make them clearer and easier to apply than their ancestors. By resolving conflicts in the case law, amendments can reduce the costs inherent in applying the Rules in individual cases.

Furthermore, the traditional assumptions about applying the Rules of Evidence "on the fly" may be somewhat anachronistic in the world of contemporary litigation. The phenomenon of the vanishing trial has been widely reported.4 Given the paucity of trials, evidence rules are far more often applied in the context of summary judgment and as part of the compromise of civil and criminal cases than they are in the courtroom. Even in the trial context, significant evidentiary issues-such as the admissibility of "other crimes" evidence, the admissibility of prior convictions, and the admissibility of expert opinion testimony-are frequently presented before trial in in limine motions. Judges and lawyers can and should consult the rule book for updates in these situations in which the Rules are not being applied "in the heat of battle."

Allowing any set of rules, even trial rules like the Federal Rules of Evidence, to calcify and become frozen in place presents a grave danger to their efficacy and fairness. Indeed, this risk became apparent after the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules was disbanded following the enactment of the Rules in 1975. With no body tasked with oversight of the Rules and with no ready mechanism for modification, commentators grew increasingly concerned about the conflicting interpretations in the courts and about the Rules ' long-term viability.5 Amid calls for reform, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules was reconstituted in 1992 to oversee amendments to the Rules to avoid such a stale state of affairs.6

Change is notoriously hard and potentially risky, but it is sometimes necessary. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Poetry in Motion: The Federal Rules of Evidence and Forward Progress as an Imperative
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.