Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are set of laws that were first enacted in 1975 in order to help the judges to deal with cases that involved evidence. This set is complex and contains both statues and penal codes that are legislated in order to eliminate the unfair evidentiary submission. It is also meant to replace the unnecessary expense and delay in the American courts ( Graham, 2015 ). The sole reason behind the setting up of such laws was the constant need to have a consistent and predictable set of rules that would enhance fairness and promote justice. The FRE are used in both criminal and civil courts before magistrates and judges unless in places where there are exceptions.
Many states within the US have either fully adopted these rules or partly with variations within the locality, or decided to revise their own laws that govern evidence that at least go in line with the ones set at the federal level. The Federal Rules of Evidence were promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, its amendment is a responsibility of the Congress from period to period. As they are considered legislative enactments, they contain a statute force and the American courts are allowed to interpret them just the same way they would do to any other rule of statute standard. The traditional tools of statutory construction should therefore be employed in the provisions of the FDE.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
When looking at these set of rules, it is imperative to note that they were introduced to create a unity within the American court proceedings throughout the country. The major function of such is to make sure that an alleged matter is submitted before the magistrates at a judicial trial in order for it to be disproved or established as the truth. The rules of evidence thus govern how the facts can be proved and the inferences that can be made from the submissions during the trial of civil and criminal cases. Prior to the 20 th century, the law of evidence was basically the result of decisional law. These were majorly common law and during the twentieth century, there were projects like the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code which were meant to codify the decisional laws. Thus, it is essential to note that the rules have caused harmony in areas that were previously in disarray. The evolution from the conflicting decisions in the past to the more uniform ones in the state and national courts is a clear indication that the federal rules of evidence has created a stunning achievement.
The history of FDE is marred with twists and turns of events as its initial conception came in 1965 when Chief Justice Earl Warren formed the committee of fifteen lawyers and legal scholars from all over the nation to draft the new set of rules. There then came the struggle to pass the rules through the Congress as they suspended its implementation even after circulation of drafts by the Supreme Court of the US in 1969, 1971, and 1972 ( Graham, 2015 ). This was an exercise of power from that is vested under the Rules Enabling Act and the Congress said it did so to further study the drafts. The delay was long and it was blamed on the Watergate Scandal, but eventually, the FRE was made a federal in 1975. This was after President Ford put a signature on the document containing An Act to Establish Rules of Evidence for Certain Courts and Proceedings. The FDE were enacted only after the Congress modified the proposed rules in a series of ways. The question of privilege caused much debate on the rules and this was a concern that arose from the Watergate scandal.
The purpose of FDE is to regulate the evidence that court session can use to arrive at a verdict. History of the justice system in the United States is one that is marred with the distrust of the jurors as the rules of evidence indicate. The Federal Rules of Evidence were thus created to eliminate this distrust, and support the admission of evidence in cases that are close. With this in mind, there are several rules that perpetuate the historical distrust between the justices and thus explicitly limit the kind of evidence that they may obtain or the reason for which they may consider it. Also, the FDE focus on a few primary ideas-overall fairness, reliability, efficiency, unfair surprise, and relevance of the court proceeding. These Rules vest the judges with the power of admitting evidence in the face of competing quarrels between parties on opposite sides. This discretion ensures that the jury has enough evidence on its desk, but not so much of it that is unnecessarily confusing, inflammatory, or repetitive.
The structure of the Federal Rules of Evidence is consistent of 67 specific rules that are arranged into 11 articles ( Graham, 2015 ):
General Provisions
Judicial Notice
Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
Relevancy and Its Limits
Privileges
Witnesses
Opinions and Expert Testimony
Hearsay
Authentication and Identification
Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
Miscellaneous Rules
Some of the concepts in the FDE are common and some lawyers refer to them by the number of the rule. One of the most common concepts is the balancing of relevance against other competing interests which is an embodiment of Rule 403. This rule gives the court the [power to exclude relevant evidence it feels that its probative strength is outweighed significantly by prejudice of one or more of the following dangers: needless presentation of cumulative evidence, time wastage, undue delay, misleading of the jury, confusing the issues, or unfair prejudice ( Wigmore, 2016) . Of all these, one of the most common competing interests is the jeopardy of unfair prejudice.
The FDE define the relevance broadly and lessens the prohibitions that the common law placed on the competence of witnesses to testify. These rules say that anyone can qualify to be a witness unless otherwise stated and thus should be allowed to testify before the court. This has resulted in the existence of a phenomenon known as the expert testimony and has continued to provoke controversy. It has been thought that when there is a higher admissibility of expert testimony, the use of hearsay becomes paramount. However, the Rules have taken care of the hearsay to some extent. The evolution of FDE especially in Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5) there are provisions of an open invitation to admit hearsay that should not fit any of the traditional categorical exceptions. Courts have been known to employ the residuals quite often and aggressively. This makes the pattern of decisions indicate a slow but serious erosion of the law against hearsay ( Wigmore, 2016) . The FDE have had a great deal on evolving the rules of hearsay. This is one of the most confounding phenomena in the act of legal practice. Its ambiguities strike the fact that it can be used to maliciously make a criminal case take a different turn. For instance, if a lawyer uses a writing to immortalize the recollections of a witness the attorney may become deceitful. The opposing party may provide the portion of the document that is relevant into evidence. However, the party that examines the evidence may not do this, even if the piece of writing contains the prior statements of the witness. When upon asking by the attorney a witness fails to review a writing that is apparently meaningful, and fails to provide it in evidence, the jury can question the relevance and truthfulness of the provisions. The rules of hearsay have allowed the jury to admit certain amounts of hearsay. This was not in the common law as hearsay was excluded entirely from court processes.
The courts may wish to test for the truthfulness or character of such in witnesses as per Rule 608. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by testimony after clear examination of whether the reputation of the witness upholds or if they have a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. However, the evidence that show the character of truthfulness is only acceptable after that character has been questioned, as was the condition in the common law ( Wigmore, 2016) . In some cases, opinion and reputation can be used as a means to prove the consistency of character of the witness and this is conformity with Rule 405 (a). Any opinion or indication that the witness is not truthful may be considered as an attack and therefore warrant the admissibility of proving evidence.
The Rule 702 provides that an expert witness be a person from any field with knowledge and expertise about that discipline. This may be in the field of engineering, science, medicine, or the like. The qualified witness under this provision should be of ability, training, expertise, instruction, and knowledge. These qualifications are prerequisites of the person to offer expert opinion. The testimony that these people offer must be facts and data which are subject to their discipline. They are supposed to help the jury understand the technical topics that entails specialized knowledge. Expert witnesses testify and gives professional opinion, but the non-expert witnesses only provides the account of hearsay and what they saw. Thus, Rule 702 considers any person who has not undergone specialized training and experience as unfit to make correct conclusions or drawing precise opinions.
In conclusion, the Federal Rules of Evidence has helped root out unfair justice and unify the court proceedings in the whole of United States. It has made sure that the distrust that existed between the jury in the prior times has been taken care of. The three important sections that the Rules have revolutionized are: witnesses, hearsay, and relevance of evidence.
References
Graham, M. (2015). Federal Rules of Evidence in a Nutshell, 9th . West Academic.
Wigmore, J. H. (2016). Wigmore on evidence: Wolters Kluwer.
