This statutory supplement incorporates the latest changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as several proposed revisions likely to become law in 2024.Three changes took effect on December 1, 2023. One extends Rule 106's rule of completeness to unrecorded oral and nonverbal statements. A second makes explicit a trial court's power under Rule 615 to bar excluded witnesses from any access to trial testimony. The third--and most significant--change clarifies that under Rule 702, the proponent must establish that "it ...
Read More
This statutory supplement incorporates the latest changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as several proposed revisions likely to become law in 2024.Three changes took effect on December 1, 2023. One extends Rule 106's rule of completeness to unrecorded oral and nonverbal statements. A second makes explicit a trial court's power under Rule 615 to bar excluded witnesses from any access to trial testimony. The third--and most significant--change clarifies that under Rule 702, the proponent must establish that "it is more likely than not" that a proposed expert satisfies each of the rule's preconditions and that "the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application" of the expert's methods to the facts at hand. Also included are five proposed amendments likely to become law on December 1, 2024. The most significant of these revisions would add a new Rule 107 governing courtroom use of illustrative aids. All these proposed changes appear along with Advisory Committee's Notes and explanatory editor's notes. The supplement also includes a side-by-side reprinting of the old (pre-2011), unrestyled Federal Rules of Evidence and the restyled rules to allow for ready comparison. Editor's notes point out those areas where the restyling project, contrary to its authors' claimed intentions, worked substantive changes to the rules. A new case supplement offers extensive case notes summarizing the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Samia v. United States and the Court's 2023 grants of certiorari in Smith v. Arizona and Diaz v. United States.
Read Less
