Federal Rules of Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in the United States federal court system. While the Federal Rules of Evidence apply only in federal courts, a large majority of states have adopted similar (and sometimes identical) rules for use in their respective courts, and the Federal Rules are used as the basis of most law school classes on evidence.
Contents |
[edit] History
Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, the federal system relied primarily on case law, or non-codified common law, for rules of evidence. While some states had codified rules of evidence prior to 1975, a majority also used common-law rules. The FRE were inspired in part by 1) the drafting of the Uniform Rules of Evidence in the 1950s, 2) the success of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since their 1938 adoption, and 3) the 1965 version of the California Evidence Code.
In 1965, Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed an advisory committee of fifteen to draft the new rules. The committee was chaired by trial lawyer Albert E. Jenner from Chicago. Other trial lawyers included David Berger of Philadelphia, Hicks Epton of Wewoka, Oklahoma, Egbert Haywood of Durham, North Carolina, Frank Raichle of Buffalo, New York, Herman Selvin of Los Angeles, Craig Spangenberg of Cleveland, and Edward Bennett Williams of Washington, D.C. Members from legal academia included Thomas F. Green, Jr. of the University of Georgia Law School, Charles W. Joiner of the University of Michigan Law School, Jack Weinstein of Columbia Law School, and Edward W. Cleary of the University of Illinois College of Law. Representing the judiciary were U.S. Circuit Judge Simon E. Sobeloff of Maryland, U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes of Texas, and U.S. District Judge Robert Van Pelt of Nebraska.
The United States Supreme Court promulgated drafts of the FRE in 1969, 1971 and 1972, but Congress then exercised its right under the Rules Enabling Act to suspend implementation of the FRE until it could study them further. After a long delay blamed on the Watergate scandal, Congress allowed the FRE to become federal law in 1975, but only after enacting a series of modifications to the rules proposed by the Supreme Court, particularly in the area of privilege.
[edit] Purpose
Rule 102 of the FRE, titled "Purpose and Construction", states, "[t]hese rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined." Thus, according to rule 102, the purposes of the FRE can be summed up in four words: fairness, efficiency, clarity, justice.
However, the FRE were adopted for reasons other than those explicitly presented in rule 102. First, the common law evidence rules were not uniform - evidence laws would often vary from one circuit court to another and from one state court to another. A single, comprehensive set of rules was necessary to eliminate this rather complicated variance. Second, many legal scholars, lawyers, and judges considered the traditional common law rules harsh in some instances and nonsensical in others. Thus, the FRE liberalized the common law rules in many respects to eliminate these adverse effects.
[edit] Structure
The FRE are divided into eleven articles, with each article containing one or more rules. The articles are:
- I. General Provisions
- II. Judicial Notice
- III. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
- IV. Relevancy and its Limits
- V. Privileges
- VI. Witnesses
- VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony
- VIII. Hearsay
- IX. Authentication and Identification
- X. Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
- XI. Miscellaneous Rules
There are sixty-seven total rules. Some of the most notable rules include:
- Rule 401 defines "relevant evidence" - "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
- Rule 403 excludes relevant evidence whose probative value would be substantially outweighed by its potential to cause prejudice, confusion, or waste of time if admitted - "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
- Rule 802 excludes hearsay evidence from consideration at trial (though subsequent rules create numerous exceptions to this general rule) - "Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress."
