Law Commons^™

Civil Procedure: Commentary, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege - New Emphasis On The Lawyer's Need To Know: Upjohn Co. V. United States, Michael J. Viscount Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

In seeking the advice of legal counsel, the corporation may, out of necessity, communicate through its representatives confidential secrets about its conduct in business. As is the case with individuals, it is well settled that a corporation may avail itself of the evidentiary privilege which allows concealment of such confidential communications. This so-called attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law. However, its application in the corporate context has been quite unpredictable for the past twenty years.

Current Controversies Concerning Witness Immunity In The Federal Courts, Jane Duffy

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Perils Of The Rulemaking Process: The Development, Application, And Unconstitutionality Of Rule 804(B)(3)'S Penal Interest Exception, Peter W. Tague

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As the culmination of a decade of rulemaking, in 1975 Congress enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include in rule 804(b)(3) an exception to the hearsay rule that allows federal courts to admit statements against penal interest. Having reviewed previously unpublished memoranda and nonpublic tape recordings of the deliberations of the Advisory and Standing Committees to the Judicial Conference and the Special Subcommittee on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws of the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Tague explores the development of rule 804(b)(3), one of the more controversial rules that emerged from that rulemaking process. After analyzing rule 804(b)(3) and …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Six Years After, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been in effect since 1975. Six years of experience is not much time in which to assess such a complex and important body of law. Nevertheless, there is now some "evidence" of the impact of the Federal Rules on the various states and circuits.

The Rules do seem to have proved successful enough to stimulate widespread imitation. Approximately half the states in the United States have or will very shortly have evidence codes patterned substantially on the Rules, even down to their numbers. Many of the remaining states (e.g., Iowa, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) have …

Inculpatory Declarations Against Penal Interest And The Coconspirator Rule Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Diane M. Frye

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Attorney-Client Privilege: A Look At Its Effect On The Corporate Client And The Corporate Executive, E. Elizabeth Perlman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Co-Conspirator Declarations: The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Other Recent Developments, From A Criminal Law Perspective, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

Perhaps the most important advantage available to a prosecutor in a criminal conspiracy case is the exception to the hearsay rule for co-conspirator declarations. The exception is widely used and is often a significant part of the government presentation. In essence, it provides that otherwise inadmissible hearsay declarations of coconspirators are admissible at trial against the defendant so long as they were made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The exception typically arises when an alleged co-conspirator declarant tells the witness (often an undercover police officer) all about the conspiracy, perhaps in the hope of attracting a …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: A Model For Improved Evidentiary Decisionmaking In Washington, Robert H. Aronson

Washington Law Review

This article discusses the underlying reasons for establishing rules of evidence, defines two unavoidable conflicts encountered in attempting to effectuate the purposes for adopting such rules, suggests that the Federal Rules of Evidence help resolve these conflicts by adhering to several clearly enunciated rationales, and, finally, indicates how the Rules recognize and accommodate important new scientific and social insights on the admissibility of evidence.

Proposed Rule Of Evidence 609: Impeachment Of Criminal Defendants By Prior Convictions, D. Joseph Hurson

Washington Law Review

This comment describes current Washington law on the use of criminal convictions to impeach the testimony of criminal defendants and examines the factors which are relevant to the formation of a more acceptable rule. Adoption of the proposed rule would also affect the rules for impeaching nondefendant witnesses. Only a criminal defendant, however, is in jeopardy of actually being convicted as a result of a jury's misuse of evidence of prior convictions. Because the interests of the criminal defendant witness will be so drastically affected by the prior conviction rule which the Washington Supreme Court ultimately adopts, this comment will …

Elimination Of The Agency Fiction In The Vicarious Admissions Exception, Norman B. Page

Washington Law Review

This note will compare the Washington courts' application of the common law vicarious admissions exception to the broad rule embodied in Federal Rule 801(d)(2)(D). Furthermore, it will identify and analyze the policies upon which the vicarious admissions rule is grounded and will compare the effectiveness of the common law rule and the federal or "broad" rule in fulfilling those policies. It will demonstrate how, in focusing on the substantive law of agency rather than directly on those circumstances which tend to assure a statement's trustworthiness, both rules share a fundamental flaw and, as a result, accomplish only imprecisely the basic …

The Proposed Federal Rules Of Evidence: Of Privileges And The Division Of Rule-Making Power, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes that the lower federal courts accord the same binding authority to the Proposed Rules that they give those judicially promulgated procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that have been implicitly approved by Congress.

Part I of the Note analyzes the constitutional division of the rule-making power by examining both the policy considerations involved and the relevant constitutional language and doctrines. That examination indicates that the power to establish such rules is shared by Congress and the Supreme Court. To determine when that power is appropriately exercised by one branch rather than the other, …

The Federal Rules Of Evidence: A Model For Improved Evidentiary Decisionmaking In Washington, Robert H. Aronson

Articles

This article discusses the underlying reasons for establishing rules of evidence, defines two unavoidable conflicts encountered in attempting to effectuate the purposes for adopting such rules, suggests that the Federal Rules of Evidence help resolve these conflicts by adhering to several clearly enunciated rationales, and, finally, indicates how the Rules recognize and accommodate important new scientific and social insights on the admissibility of evidence.

Prior Consistent Statements, Arthur H. Travers Jr.

Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeaching The Professional Expert Witness By A Showing Of Financial Interest, Michael H. Graham

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Employing Inconsistent Statements For Impeachment And As Substantive Evidence: A Critical Review And Proposed Amendments Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 801 ( D ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 613, And 607, Michael H. Graham

Michigan Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence have already been employed as a model for the new Uniform Rules of Evidence and for several state codifications, and yet apparently none of the drafters of these schemes gave serious consideration either to expanding admissibility under 801(d)(1)(A) selectively or to controlling potential abuse regarding the use of prior inconsistent statements not substantively admissible. This Article, after exploring the history, development, and rationale of rules 801(d)(1)(A), 613, and 607, proposes that rules 613 and 607 be amended to bring their provisions into conformity with rule 801 (d) (1) (A). In the same vein, the Article …

Instructing The Jury Upon Presumptions In Civil Cases: Comparing Federal Rule 301 With Uniform Rule 301, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Should Wyoming Adopt These Rules?, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

An Essay On The Determination Of Relevancy Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Arthur H. Travers Jr.

Publications

The scope of the general definition of "relevant evidence" in the Federal Rules of Evidence is ambiguous. It is unclear whether Congress, for instance, intended that certain issues be considered legislatively determined or that those issues rest within the discretion of the courts. There is also some uncertainty over the definition's applicability to several types of evidence--particularly undisputed facts such as those that provide background information or are judicially admitted.

A Review Of The Proposed Michigan Rules Of Evidence, James K. Robinson, John W. Reed

Articles

On January 6, 1977, the Supreme Court of Michigan entered an order stating that it is considering adoption of the proposed Michigan Rules of Evidence which were submitted to the Court by the committee which it appointed in March 1975. The Court has solicited comments from interested persons regarding the proposed rules. A copy of the Supreme Court's order is published in this issue of the Bar Journal. The proposed rules are published in the January 26, 1977, issue of North Western Reporter, Second Series (Michigan Edition). The purpose of this article is to review in general the background and …

Evidence Problems In Criminal Cases, John W. Reed

Book Chapters

The Federal Rules of Evidence, enacted by Congress, became effective on July 1, 1975. Ten states have adopted state versions of the Federal Rules to govern trials in their courts, and about half the remaining states are considering whether to follow suit. Michigan is one of these latter states. Early in 1977 a committee appointed by the Supreme Court of Michigan proposed rules of evidence for Michigan closely patterned on the Federal Rules, and, if all goes well, the Court will promulgate rules for the Michigan courts to become effective in 1977 or soon thereafter. Michigan lawyers should be aware …

The Second Circuit Review--1975-76 Term: Courts-- Evidence & Procedure: Commentary: The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.

An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …

An Evidence Code: The American Experience, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professor Paul Rothstien's opening address at the Conference on Current Trends in Evidence, Dalhousie University, 26th November 1976.

Rothstein discusses the American Evidence Code, the American experience with it, and compares it to a proposed Code that Canada is considering.

Bad News And Good News, John W. Reed

Articles

I have been asked to visit with you about some of my current interests in the evidence field, in which I teach. When you invite an academic lawyer to speak at your meeting, you obviously expect of him something other than the latest hot tips on trial strategy and tactics, something other than a speech entitled "Reflections on My Last Eleven Victories in Court." Others can do that for you, probably at lunch - or, even better, at cocktails with the successes more impressive and the defeats more forgivable under the influence of an ounce or two of alcohol.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence And Florida Evidence Law Compared, David K. Miller

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Credibility And Character: A Different Look At An Interminable Problem, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The problems of character evidence "resolved" by the new Federal Rules are problems that involve the structure of human personality. The judgmental processing by jurors of character information involves a behavioral transaction called interpersonal perception. Each of these psychological problems has been intensively investigated for nearly 40 years. As the character problems of the law now take on the appearance of having been solved, there is not the slightest indication that the results of this scientific endeavor influenced the choices made by the law. The solutions to these problems composed by the Judicial Conference and embraced by the Supreme Court …

The Admissibility Of Social Science Evidence In Person-Oriented Legal Adjudication, Ira P. Robbins

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Practitioner's Guide To The Federal Rules Of Evidence

University of Richmond Law Review

On July 1, 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect. President Ford's signature on Public Law 93-595 was the culmination of nearly twenty years of study, drafting, and debate. Obviously the decision to codify federal evidence law was not lightly made, but the desire for uniformity ultimately made the Rules possible. As with all major legislation, compromise was necessary and certain areas of the law were left untouched. Criminal presumptions represent one such area. In other areas, such as privilege, only minimal codification was possible. The final result is a good set of rules, but one which might …

State Evidentiary Privileges In Federal Civil Litigation, Martin I. Kaminsky

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad News And Good News, John W. Reed

Other Publications

Law schools do one thing superbly well: they teach the intellectual skills of reasoning, of distinction drawing, of deductive and inductive logic, of anlysis and synthesis. These are heavily verbal skills, at least in the context in which lawyers employ them, and students are tested for their mastery of these skills by written examinations. If one does well, he or she is placed on the law review, where these particular skills are honed even further.