If one reads the article, one finds that his proposal is less radical than the title of his article suggests: he mainly wanted a make-over of the Federal Rules of Evidence -- particularly their overall structure -- rather than the complete abolition of the law of evidence. (In an appendix Jeans laid out his proposed revised rules of evidence.)
The law of evidence is a sturdy plant -- or, if you prefer, a hardy weed. Why is that, dear Reader?
consulting on investigation strategy and the law of evidence
1 comment:
The law of evidence does not consist solely of the hearsay rule.
The law of evidence does not consist solely of rules whose main aim is to enhance the accuracy of fact finding.
The law of evidence does not consist solely of rules that govern the admissibility of evidence.
The law of evidence, broadly conceived, includes all legal rules that regulate evidence and fact finding in adjudication.
It is possible that society can realize its purposes -- epistemic and social -- if it leaves evidence-gathering, evidence-assessment, and fact finding completely unregulated, if we say to judges, lawyers, witnesses, and clients, "Go at it -- collecting evidence etc. -- as best you can, and we wish you luck in resolving your disputes about evidence." But it is not likely that this is the best course of action. The real battleground is about how evidence-gathering etc. should be regulated, not whether it should be regulated.
Post a Comment