Confrontation and the Utility of Rules

Authors

Richard D. Friedman, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
Ronald J. Allen, Northwestern UniversityFollow
Alex SteinFollow
Roger C. Park, University of California, Hastings College of LawFollow
Margaret A. BergerFollow
Nancy J. KingFollow
John JacksonFollow
Eleanor Swift
Craig R. Callen
Eileen A. Scallen

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1995

Abstract

There is a good reason why evidence scholars continue to be fascinated and perplexed, and some courts continue at least to be perplexed, by the types of evidence that tend to be lumped together misleadingly under the headings nonassertive conduct or implied assertions. Evidence of this sort highlights a paradox of the prevailing law of hearsay. I believe that this paradox cannot be resolved without fundamentally transforming the structure of that law. Thus, while I agree - within the current framework - with many of the insights so ably stated in this Symposium, I think evidence scholars must devote their efforts to construction of a better structure.

Recommended Citation

Friedman, Richard D. "Confrontation and the Utility of Rules." J. Jackson et al., co-authors. Miss. C. L. Rev. 16, no. 1 (1995): 87-115.