2011FLASH - Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship & History (Fordham University)Open access

Federal Rule of Evidence 703: The Back Door and the Confrontation Clause, Ten Years Later

Ian Volek

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Federal Rule of Evidence 703 allows experts to form opinions using information that is not admitted at trial, and even on evidence that is inadmissible. In 2000, Rule 703 was amended to emphasize that it did not serve as an exception to the other rules of evidence. When experts rely on inadmissible evidence, the evidence can only be disclosed for the limited purpose of assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion, and only if the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. This Note reviews the application of Rule 703 before and after the 2000 amendment. It finds that disclosure of inadmissible evidence should still be expected in a substantial number of cases, but nevertheless concludes that the compromise approach struck by amended Rule 703 is largely correct. Courts should, however, weigh the strong possibility that limiting instructions under Rule 703 will often be ineffective (and logically impossible), and reduce disclosure accordingly.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Federal Rule of Evidence 703 allows experts to form opinions using information that is not admitted at trial, and even on evidence that is inadmissible. In 2000, Rule 703 was amended to emphasize that it did not serve as an exception to the other rules of evidence. When experts rely on inadmissible evidence, the evidence can only be disclosed for the limited purpose of assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion, and only if the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. This Note reviews the application of Rule 703 before and after the 2000 amendment. It finds that disclosure of inadmissible evidence should still be expected in a substantial number of cases, but nevertheless concludes that the compromise approach struck by amended Rule 703 is largely correct. Courts should, however, weigh the strong possibility that limiting instructions under Rule 703 will often be ineffective (and logically impossible), and reduce disclosure accordingly.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Federal Rule of Evidence 703 allows experts to form opinions using information that is not admitted at trial, and even on evidence that is inadmissible. In 2000, Rule 703 was amended to emphasize that it did not serve as an exception to the other rules of evidence. When experts rely on inadmissible evidence, the evidence can only be disclosed for the limited purpose of assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion, and only if the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. This Note reviews the application of Rule 703 before and after the 2000 amendment. It finds that disclosure of inadmissible evidence should still be expected in a substantial number of cases, but nevertheless concludes that the compromise approach struck by amended Rule 703 is largely correct. Courts should, however, weigh the strong possibility that limiting instructions under Rule 703 will often be ineffective (and logically impossible), and reduce disclosure accordingly.

Key concepts: Hearsay, Confrontation Clause, Federal Rules of Evidence, Testimonial, Jury, Supreme court, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Federal Rule of Evidence 703: The Back Door and the Confrontation Clause, Ten Years Later — Research Paper | ScholarLens