Analyzing 'The Politics of [Evidence] Rulemaking'

44 Pages Posted: 1 Jul 2010

Date Written: 2002

Abstract

As the 2001 Chair of the Evidence Section of the American Association of Law Schools, I was responsible for organizing the panel on "The Politics of [Evidence] Rulemaking." I put together a panel consisting of former members of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence and its most vocal critic. I asked them to address the following questions: who should make the evidence rules-the judiciary, the legislature, the executive? What role should the practicing bar, law professors and the general public play in the creation of the rules of evidence? What is the proper function of the Federal Rules of Evidence Advisory Committee-to codify case law, to develop rules and amendments to respond to criticism of existing case law, or to develop solutions to evidentiary problems unforeseen by the original drafters? Are there special considerations that apply to evidence law that do not apply at least to the same degree, to other civil or criminal rules of procedure? Part I of this article provides the context for the panel discussion-describing the development of the Federal Rules of Evidence to date and, in the process, revealing the growing contentiousness surrounding the Rules. Part II discusses the issues presented by the panelists as well as the articles by the Professors Rice and Broun.

Keywords: Evidence, federal rules of evidence, courts, trials, Federal Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence

Suggested Citation

Scallen, Eileen A., Analyzing 'The Politics of [Evidence] Rulemaking' (2002). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2002, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1632477

Eileen A. Scallen (Contact Author)

UCLA School of Law ( email )

385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
(310) 206-0592 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
33
Abstract Views
517
PlumX Metrics