Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are a set of regulations that govern how evidence is presented and admitted in federal courts in the United States. Established in 1975, these rules were designed to create a structured, consistent approach to determining the admissibility of various types of evidence, thereby ensuring fair and orderly trials. The FRE outlines key concepts such as relevance, materiality, and competence, which help guide judges in their decisions about what evidence is appropriate for juries to consider.
Evidence is categorized into two main types: direct evidence, which straightforwardly supports a fact, and circumstantial evidence, which requires inferences to be drawn. The rules also distinguish between testimonial evidence, based on witness accounts, and nontestimonial evidence, consisting of physical objects. Additionally, the admissibility of scientific evidence has evolved, with landmark cases like Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals establishing frameworks for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony.
Another important aspect includes the treatment of hearsay evidence, which is generally inadmissible unless it falls within specific exceptions. Overall, the FRE aim to strike a balance between allowing a broad range of evidence while maintaining fairness and preventing prejudicial influences in legal proceedings. Each state has its own rules of evidence, often modeled after the federal guidelines, reflecting the FRE's significance in shaping the judicial landscape in the U.S.
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
DEFINITION: Rules governing the admission in federal courts of the facts that litigants may use to prove their cases.
SIGNIFICANCE: Designed to ensure that trials proceed in an orderly and predictable manner, the Federal Rules of Evidence provide guidelines for gauging the validity of scientific evidence and its admission at trial.
The rules of evidence used in US courts have evolved with the system. Until 1975, when they were codified under the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules existed independently in the form of judicial decisions, mandates, and separate statutes. The Federal Rules of Evidence govern procedures in the federal courts, but they are not applicable to state court proceedings. Each US state has its own rules of evidence, although many states have used the federal rules as models or prototypes.
The general purpose of rules of evidence is to regulate the evidence that juries may use to reach their verdicts. The rules address some basic concepts, such as relevance, eliminating unfair surprise, efficiency, reliability, and overall fairness in the adversary process, and they also permit judges broad discretion to admit evidence or exclude evidence within certain parameters, ensuring that juries have a broad spectrum of evidence before them, but not so much that the evidence becomes cumulative, repetitive, inflammatory, or confusing. In 2024, the US Supreme Court was considering proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence for issues such as when illustrative aids may be shown to a jury.
Types of Evidence
Two basic types of evidence are recognized: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence tends to establish the fact in question without additional proof. A fact is established based on the credibility or value of the evidence, without the need for further inference. Circumstantial evidence requires the fact finder (the jury in a jury trial, the in a bench trial) to make inferences or draw conclusions. For example, a person wakes up to find snow on the ground in the morning when it was clear and dry the night before; the observer did not personally see the snow falling but can infer that it snowed during the night.
Testimonial evidence is based on the testimony of witnesses; nontestimonial evidence (also called real or tangible evidence) is based on physical objects or items designed to assist the fact finder (called demonstrative evidence) such as maps or diagrams of crime scenes.
The admissibility of evidence at trial depends on the rules. The fact finder is permitted to evaluate only admissible evidence. All relevant evidence is admissible only if it is competent (legally adequate). Relevant evidence tends to prove or disprove a disputed issue. Irrelevant evidence wastes time and is often prejudicial. It may also confuse the jury. Sometimes, however, even relevant evidence can be inadmissible because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. Probative evidence tends to prove something of importance to the case. Relevant evidence that has little probative value is immaterial and should be excluded. Materiality is part of the concept of relevance under the federal rules, but it is defined as evidence that tends to make the existence of a fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Evidence must also be competent to be admissible. Competent witnesses must take an oath or affirm that they will testify truthfully. Nonexpert witnesses are limited to testimony about what they saw or heard personally; the opinions and conclusions of such witnesses are “incompetent.” Witnesses who are experts—owing to special training, knowledge, or experience—may offer opinions and conclusions. It is for the fact finder to determine the value, if any, to be placed on the testimony of competent witnesses, lay or expert.
Admissibility of Scientific Evidence
The landmark case for the admissibility of scientific procedures and their results is Frye v. United States (1923). The Frye standard requires the trial court to determine whether the scientific theory or scientific method used to generate evidence is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. This has become known as the Frye test. After the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted in 1975, Rule 702 stated that expert witnesses may testify in the form of opinion if their specialized knowledge will help the jury to understand the evidence or determine a disputed fact. Although Rule 702 relaxed the stringent Frye standard, it gave little guidance as to what would be helpful to the fact finder.
In its 1993 decision in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the trial court has a gatekeeper function: to make sure that admitted scientific evidence and expert testimony are reliable and relevant. Daubert set out a checklist for trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony, suggesting factors such as standards and controls, testing, peer review, error rate, and acceptability that could be helpful in determining the reliability of a scientific theory or technique. During the early twenty-first century, more state courts use the Daubert test for admissibility of scientific evidence; federal courts use both Rule 702 and Daubert.
In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in response to Daubert and Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, a 1999 Supreme Court decision. The amendment affirms the trial court’s role as gatekeeper and provides general standards that the trial court must use to assess the reliability and helpfulness of expert testimony.
Character Evidence
Character is a collection of traits and features that make up a person’s disposition or nature, evidenced by a consistent pattern of behavior. Character traits include honesty, courage, and integrity as well as such negative traits as dishonesty, violence, and recklessness. In criminal cases, character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct or to show that a person acted in conformity with a particular character trait on a particular occasion. The prosecution is not permitted to introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character, such as violent tendencies, but the defense has the option to introduce evidence of good character, such as honesty.
If the defense elects to introduce a character witness to testify about the defendant’s good character, this is said to “open the door” for the prosecution to provide rebuttal evidence. If the defense does not choose to introduce a character witness, the prosecution may not comment on that fact to the jury.
Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay is defined in rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” It is excluded because the witness is not testifying from personal knowledge but from repetition of what was said or written outside court by another person who is not present, offered for the purpose of establishing the truth. The out-of-court declarant may have been lying, joking, or speaking carelessly, and the opposing side has no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant to impeach or test that person’s credibility. Additionally, given that the statement was made out of court, the demeanor of the declarant could not be observed by the fact finder. Alternatively, the testifying witness may have a faulty memory, poor hearing, or another infirmity. The exclusion of hearsay testimony prevents unreliable evidence from being considered. It should be noted that statements that otherwise would qualify as hearsay are admissible if they are introduced not to prove the truth of the matter asserted but merely to show that a statement was made.
Numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule exist, making otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence reliable and admissible. These exceptions often involve surrounding circumstances that ensure the reliability of the evidence.
Bibliography
Broun, Kenneth S., ed. McCormick on Evidence. 6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West, 2006.
Graham, Michael H. Federal Rules of Evidence in a Nutshell. 7th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West, 2007.
James, Stuart H., and Jon J. Nordby, eds. Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2005.
Pellicciotti, Joseph M. Handbook of Basic Trial Evidence: A College Introduction. Bristol, Ind.: Wyndham Hall Press, 1992.
"Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence." Supreme Court of the United States, 2 Apr. 2024, www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frev24‗9o6b.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
Stopp, Margaret T. Evidence Law in the Trial Process. Albany, N.Y.: West/Delmar, 1999.
"2024 Federal Rules of Evidence." 2024 LexisNexis Federal Documents, www.lexisnexis.com/supp/lawschool/resources/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.