English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

IN DRAFTING the new rules for civil procedure in the federal courts the Supreme Court's committee has dealt sparingly with the law of evidence. Rule 44 as set out in the committee's report is designed primarily to clear up the confusion which has existed heretofore with regard to the applicability of state rules of evidence in the federal courts and to avoid any further confusion which might arise from the union of law and equity under the new rules.1 Of the several possible methods of treating these problems, that chosen by the committee is, it is submitted, best adapted to the situation. A thorough-going revision of the law of evidence resulting in a code which is substantially complete probably is not desirable in any case, certainly not in this. A single general rule, such as one requiring conformity to state law on all matters of evidence, would aid in alleviating the confusion; but to adopt a rule of this nature would be to lose an excellent opportunity for eliminating some of the worst features of the present law of evidence.2 The alternative followed by the committee is to propose a few rules for specific instances and a general one to cover the great body of evidence questions. These rules are welcome ones, for they meet pressing needs. The purpose of this article, in view of the likelihood that there will be a standing advisory committee, is to suggest additional specific rules which may well be considered in the future. Choice of the specific rules to be proposed is not a problem which can be solved solely by abstract reflection on the "justice" or "reasonableness" of a particular evidentiary principle. Two practical considerations are deemed equally important: First, attention should be focused upon those parts of the law of evidence which have proved most difficult to administer in the federal courts, i.e., the rules which have required many appellate court decisions for their interpretation. Second, little is to be gained by proposing rules which are not likely to be adopted. Although lawyers and judges probably are becoming increasingly willing to accept less

Evidence and the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure