Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield
Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield
Sam Stonefield
This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted by Congress, adopted by 34 states and has survived for over 35 years. How did this happen? What is …
“Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided “Not Hearsay” Terminology.”, Sam Stonefield
“Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided “Not Hearsay” Terminology.”, Sam Stonefield
Sam Stonefield
Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”
This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …
Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield
Classifying Admissions And Prior Statements: Alternatives To Rule 801(D)’S Confusing And Misguided Use Of The Term “Not Hearsay”, Sam Stonefield
Sam Stonefield
Abstract: Classifying Admissions and Prior Statements: Alternatives to Rule 801(d)’s Confusing and Misguided Use of The Term “Not Hearsay”
This article examines the treatment of admissions and prior statements in hearsay law generally and in Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. Nearly everyone agrees that Rule 801(d)’s classification of such statements as “not hearsay” is “awkward” and “wrong” (even “Orwellian”) and violates the norms of clarity and consistency expected of good drafting and the standards of the Guidelines for Drafting and Editing the Federal Rules. Yet the rule was drafted by a distinguished Advisory Committee, enacted …