Match Made in Maryland: Howard Chasanow and the Law of Evidence

• NCJ Number: 190126
• Journal: Maryland Law Review Volume: 60 Issue: 2 Dated: 2001 Pages: 315-372
• Author(s): Alan D. Hornstein; Nichole G. Mazade
• Editor(s): Bryan M. Giblin
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 58 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This review examined Maryland Judge Howard Chasanow’s view of the impact of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the pre-existing Rules, the common law of evidence, and the extent of the constraint imposed by the Rules on the power of the courts to develop the law of evidence.

Abstract

In this review, Judge Howard Chasanow’s contribution to the Maryland Rules of Evidence were explored from the more familiar common law perspective of a judge called upon to resolve specific problems by interpreting the new Federal Rules or by resorting to pre-existing evidentiary principles. The views of a judge as “legislator” can be in conflict with his views as a judge. The review begins with a description of two opposing theories on the extent to which formal rules of evidence constrain further development of common law principles. Chasanow’s interpretive approach was discussed reflecting the tendency to give deference to the codified Rules and at the same time develop common law doctrine. In addition, Chasanow’s decisions in six areas of evidence law were reviewed and three traits characterizing his rulings on the law of evidence in Maryland were highlighted: (1) his continued development of common law evidence, before and after the adoption of Maryland Rules; (2) his superior analytic precision; and (3) his sometimes inconsistent view on the extent to which Maryland Rules should mirror the Federal Rules. In his rulings, Judge Chasanow was seen as a proponent of the continued development of the law of evidence in Maryland. However, in regards to the matter of discretion involved in trial court decisions, Judge Chasanow’s approach suggested which aspects of the trial court’s determination should be subjected to de novo review and which to an abuse of discretion standard. Judge Chasanow’s return to trial court would afford him the opportunity to exercise his knowledge and understanding of the law of evidence and its principles and policies.