Abstract

SUMMARIZING PRIOR WITNESS TESTIMONY: ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, PEDAGOGICAL DEVICE, OR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE?

EMILIA A. QUESADA

Copyright 1996 Florida State University Law Review

This Comment examines the federal courts' recent expansion of the use of summaries at trial. Part II explores the background and purpose of Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and examines how federal courts have limited the use of the Rule with respect to summaries of in-court testimony. Part III discusses how the courts have expanded Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a), beginning with the Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Scales. Scales was the first decision to recognize Rule 611(a) as a basis for the use of summaries under the Rule's "mode and order" language. Part IV analyzes how federal courts have since progressively expanded the use of Rule 611(a), a process that culminated in the Fourth Circuit's recent application of the Rule in United States v. Johnson. Finally, this Comment concludes that federal courts have violated the purpose of the Federal Rules of Evidence by expanding Rule 611(a) and proposes that the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence address the issue to clarify the scope and purpose of the Rule.

Full Text of Article


Back to the Law Review home page