Recent changes to federal evidence law, such as new rules on the admissibility of a defendant's prior sexual conduct and amendments to the rules regarding expert testimony, have highlighted the political aspects of procedural rulemaking. This panel grappled with questions such as: Who should make the evidence rules-the judiciary, the legislature, the executive? What role should the practicing bar, law professors and the general public play in the creation of the rules of evidence? What is the proper function of the Federal Rules of Evidence Advisory Committee-to codify case law, to develop rules and amendments to respond to criticism of existing case law, or to develop solutions to evidentiary problems unforeseen by the original drafters?
The panel, organized by Professor Eileen A. Scallen, included Judge Fern Smith, Professor Kenneth S. Broun, Mr. Gregory P. Joseph, Professor Laird Kirkpatrick, and Professor Paul Rice.
Hastings Law Journal,
The Politics of (Evidence) Rulemaking,
53 Hastings L.J. 733
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol53/iss4/1