NCJ Number
6770
Journal
Tennessee Law Review Volume: 39 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1972) Pages: 379-406
Date Published
1972
Length
28 pages
Annotation
DIFFERENCES AND POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF RULES ON THE COMPETENCY, QUALIFICATION, AND INTERROGATION OF WITNESSES.
Abstract
IN SOME INSTANCES THE WITNESS PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE LIBERAL THAN COMPARABLE TENNESSEE RULES, THEREBY PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF A BROADER RANGE OF EVIDENCE OR ALLOWING FOR A BROADER SCOPE OF EXAMINATION. THIS TREND IS DEMONSTRATED BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE BARRED UNDER STATE DEAD MAN'S STATUTES, BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF OPINION AS TO CHARACTER BY PERMITTING UNLIMITED SCOPE OF CROSSEXAMINATION AND IMPEACHMENT, BY REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF WRITINGS USED BEFORE TRIAL TO REFRESH RECOLLECTION, AND BY PERMITTING THE JUDGE FREELY TO CALL AND EXAMINE WITNESSES IN EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES. IN OTHER INSTANCES THE FEDERAL RULES ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN TENNESSEE LAW, AS FOR EXAMPLE IN PROHIBITING A TRIAL JUDGE OR JUROR FROM TESTIFYING IN A CASE IN WHICH THEY ARE SITTING AS JUDGE OR JUROR, IN PROHIBITING THE USE OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR CONVICTIONS OF A WITNESS FOR PURPOSES OF ENHANCING OR IMPEACHING HIS CREDIBILITY, IN LIMITING CHARACTER CREDIBILITY EVIDENCE TO THAT OF CHARACTER FOR TRUTHFULNESS, AND IN RESTRICTING THE USE OF PRIOR MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES TO THOSE CONVICTIONS INVOLVING DISHONESTY OR FALSE STATEMENT. IN STILL OTHER INSTANCES THE FEDERAL RULES PROVIDE MORE DEFINITE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING HOW EVIDENTIARY DECISIONS SHOULD BE MADE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)