Will the Most Controversial Rule of Evidence be Reformed?
Document Type
Essay
Publication Title
The Appeal
Publication Date
12-6-2017
Abstract
(Excerpt)
To most, the Federal Rules of Evidence may seem esoteric. But how the rules draw evidentiary boundaries between admissible and inadmissible information matters quite a bit, both for litigants and for our justice system.
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 is a case in point.
Rule 609 allows attorneys to impeach criminal defendants (and other witnesses) with their convictions: to inform the jury, in other words, about these convictions for the asserted purpose of challenging the witness’s truthfulness. This form of impeachment has been called a “charade,” a “hoax,” “discriminatory and unfair,” and critics have urged its reform or abolition since its enactment in 1975. And yet, this rule has persisted, without significant alteration.
Comments
Available at: https://theappeal.org/will-the-most-controversial-rule-of-evidence-be-reformed-5930fd36df50/