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.
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.