Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1647036
 
 

Footnotes (259)



 


 



Rule 801(d)’s Oxymoronic 'Not Hearsay' Classification: The Untold Backstory and a Suggested Amendment


Sam Stonefield


Western New England University School of Law

2011

Federal Courts Law Review, Vol. 5, p. 1, 2011
Western New England University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-17

Abstract:     
This Article examines Rule 801(d)’s oxymoronic treatment of admissions and prior statements as “not hearsay.” This “not hearsay” label is inaccurate – the evidence is hearsay, as defined in Rule 801(c) – and is inconsistent with the analytically important and well-established use of the term not hearsay to describe evidence that is actually not hearsay.

The Article tells the story of how the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence ended up with such a confused and confusing label and proposes an amendment that would classify admissions and prior statements as hearsay exceptions and place each in a new, separate, appropriately labeled category. The oxymoronic treatment has its roots in a longstanding debate between Wigmore and Morgan over the proper classification of admissions. The three codes that preceded the Federal Rules of Evidence -- the Model Code, the Uniform Rules and the California Evidence Code – resolved that debate in favor of the Morgan view that admissions should be treated as a hearsay exception. However, Reporter Edward Cleary rejected Morgan’s view and came up with his own idiosyncratic and unfortunately oxymoronic formulation, which was uncritically accepted by the Advisory Committee and then adopted by Congress and 37 of the 44 states that have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Because admissions and prior statements are hearsay evidence, they should be classified as hearsay exceptions. However, because they are distinctively different than the other hearsay exceptions, they should not be placed in either the Rule 803 or Rule 804 categories but in their own distinct categories. Drawing on the examples of several state evidence codes that rejected the FRE Rule 801(d) classification, the Article develops a more appropriate alternative treatment for admissions and prior statements and presents the case for amending Rule 801(d).

Number of Pages in PDF File: 71

Keywords: hearsay, admissions, prior statements, not hearsay, 801(d), Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(d)

JEL Classification: B30

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 27, 2010 ; Last revised: December 14, 2011

Suggested Citation

Stonefield, Sam, Rule 801(d)’s Oxymoronic 'Not Hearsay' Classification: The Untold Backstory and a Suggested Amendment (2011). Federal Courts Law Review, Vol. 5, p. 1, 2011; Western New England University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-17. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1647036

Contact Information

Samuel Stonefield (Contact Author)
Western New England University School of Law ( email )
1215 Wilbraham Road
Springfield, MA 01119
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 616
Downloads: 62
Download Rank: 201,533
Footnotes:  259

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.547 seconds