An Introduction to the Federal Rules of Evidence
The Federal Rules of Evidence set forth a system of legal rules that governs the admissibility of evidence in federal courts and in U.S. territories. In general, the purpose of the Federal Rules of Evidence is to ensure that the evidence presented in a court of law is fair and reliable. The Federal Rules of Evidence are not set forth in the Constitution and do not apply in state courts.
Pursuant to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." The Federal Rules of Evidence were created by Congress during the 1970s as a comprehensive revision of the judicial doctrine of evidentiary law. In 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence and their corresponding Advisory Committee Notes became the law, pursuant to an Act of Congress (the Act).
The Act made the Federal Rules of Evidence effective July 1, 1975, and it was provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would have the authority to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence and would exercise this authority through a process created by the Act . Federal Rule of Evidence amendments are determined and finalized by the Advisory Committee on Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States and submitted to the Supreme Court, which then reviews them. If the Supreme Court approves the amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, it must transmit them to Congress by May 1 of the year following submission. Unless a joint resolution disapproving of the amendments is passed and enacted by Congress, they become effective, as filed with the Supreme Court, on December 1 of that year.
The Federal Rules of Evidence originally consisted of 31 rules. The number of rules of the Federal Rules of Evidence has since been changed more than once, and the current version contains 50 rules. The laws of several states utilize the Federal Rules of Evidence as the basis for each state’s own individual rules of evidence. For example, the State of Washington broadly follows the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, not every rule is applicable; there are local (state-specific rules) that differ from the Federal Rules of Evidence in Washington.
The Importance of Flow Charts to Legal Education
Law school curricula are full of case law, book learning and lectures, but the practical experiences and work of the courtroom are often missing from the coursework designed to teach students how to practice law. This is where skill development sessions and law school practice statements come into play. While traditional law school courses provide students with a fundamental overview of the law, they are also often taught through the lens of how it impacts cases from a theoretical perspective. What many students need as they enter their internships and, later, their legal careers is to have an understanding of the law through the eyes of a lawyer and how that specific law relates to their job on a day-to-day basis. Law school can train students to be lawyers, but what if students need to understand their future role as a judge or juror? According to Barbara Black, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Legal Research at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, the goal of the Federal Rules of Evidence Flowchart Project is to fill this void and provide practical tools to better help students and practicing lawyers understand the rules in a meaningful way that has a "real world" application. "Flowcharts depict the interrelationships among the various rules in a logical, easy-to-follow format," Black describes. "They enable the reader ‘to quickly gain insight into how and why the rules fit together and how they interact with one another while retaining the flexibility necessary to accommodate the common law.’ The flowchart format presents the rules in a way that suggests the nature of each rule’s interaction with other rules, and how those rules articulate with the Restyled Rules as a whole." Practicing lawyers report having difficulty recalling all the evidentiary rules, requirements and nuances when they have to apply them in real cases. With Federal Rules of Evidence Flowcharts from Fastcase Legal Research, easy to follow flowcharts depicting these requirements and procedural guidance help solve this problem.
Key Features of a Flow Chart for Evidence
In order to understand a flowchart of the Federal Rules of Evidence, you must first understand what the flowchart should include. There are 24 chapters plus a reserved chapter, so mapping it all out on paper will help you with your case. You need the rule number, the title, and the exception (if there is one). You also need to have a place on the flowchart for the direction of the rule to go. In the circuit you practice law, the directions may be different. In your jurisdiction, do you read left to right or top down? Direction matters as it will increase comprehension and understanding. By mapping the rules, you will memorize them as you go. It will be much easier to digest the rules of evidence because you can refer to your chart to understand how one rule interacts with another. It is a visual learning technique in a sense that will translate well onto paper and in the long run into your memory.
Your Step-By-Step Guide to a Flow Chart for Evidence
Let’s take for example a situation where you suspect that the other party, believing that intoxication affected the person’s testimony, is going to leave you a voicemail message that he or she was drinking. Let’s outline how you would work with that in mind and document it in your evidence flowchart.
Step 1: Look for the statement. "I was drunk at the (party)". Go through the transcript and edit/modify the voicemail message to make it fit. Omit the in-between comments and just show the relevant part. You do not need to put who is speaking. Just indicate which party said it. (Plaintiff or Defendant). Don’t forget to indicate he/she is the declarant in the message to put them on notice that is what they are saying, even if you think it’s obvious. The point is to give the person who looks at the flowchart the least amount of effort to focus on what you want. The clearer you make it, the better. Ann "got drunk" should be written as Ann drank alcohol (not too much or anything that would bias a reader). Let them use their imagination. And you don’t want to give them any hints as to what the evidence is, so don’t summarize it into your words, use theirs as much as possible.
No need to put "sent" on there because the only way to get the message is too see it on the phone. (No evidentiary purpose)
Step 2: Next I will put that on the timeline. On the horizontal line on the timeline I’m asking: When does this happen? The evidence is dated and timed. I will locate the exhibit (maybe it is the voicemail transcript or just the voicemail itself played for the judge). Then I will look for the incoming voicemail message on the timeline of my flowchart. There is a vertical red line on that timeline, that is when that took place. A vertical line on the timeline indicates something has happened without a description (a statement, an object, etc.). An object is like a voicemail, a document, a text, and a statement is just that – a statement. If it’s a statement, I’ll put a quotation or a paraphrase right next to the vertical line on the timeline (or even attaching it directly to the vertical line) so you can see what it is without having to look on the left-hand side of the flowchart.
Step 3: The next step I’m going to do is go to the rules and see what I want to bring in. This might differ depending on the case, so make sure you spend some time looking up those cases and rules that correlate with the evidence you have before you plan it out on a timeline.
The rule you’re looking for is for a party’s statement or a "statement of a party opponent". Generally, it would be 801(d)(2), but it could have a different subdivision. The reason is because it doesn’t have to be used against a party, it can be used for a party. It doesn’t have to be in a specific form. It doesn’t have to be made in a contemporaneous manner. (could be extemporaneous). Maybe it is a verbal statement or a written statement. Those are the rules you’re looking for.
At this point, I would put that rule and compile it. Add it to my repository here. I would type in "Rule 801D2…" "What is a statement of a party opponent?" Then I would look for those cases to give myself ideas of what I want to put on the timeline.
Then I create a sub-branch and put the rules on it. If you add a case citation, you can do "(case citation)" as a superscript and then point up to the rule you copied and modified.
Then you would go back to the initial page and identify what you are going to do with it and how you are going to use it in the case. Then you are done.
Mistakes Often Made in Evidence Flow Charts
It’s also very common for evidence flowcharts to include too many branches. For example, if you have a straightforward evidentiary scenario, it should only branch into two possible decisions – admissible or inadmissible. This is much easier to follow than having four branches, each considering a different evidentiary issue. Also, the number of branches you use should be equal to the number of decisions you need to make. Too few branches can result in incorrect decision-making, while too many can cloud the significant decisions you need to be thinking about .
When creating a flowchart, many choose to omit explanatory text completely, thinking that everything can be conveyed via the chart itself. In fact, this approach will confuse and frustrate those attempting to make decisions based on your flowchart. Explanatory text is an important part of flowcharts. Therefore, it’s important to cultivate flowcharts that include a judicious mix of text and graphics, because in the end, a good flowchart should make a complicated matter seem easy.
Electronic Tools for Evidence Flow Charts
Creating flowcharts for the Federal Rules of Evidence can certainly be accomplished with paint and a blank piece of paper, but digital software and tools have obvious advantages. Will you always have that blank piece of paper with you when that piece of evidence is presented at trial, or even at your desk before trial? An iPhone usually isn’t far away, and nearly everybody has access to a computer or laptop.
Digital flowchart-making software can be purchased, but there are also free options that have a lot of functionality. We have found that Lucid Chart is an excellent, simple-to-use software that is easy to navigate, easy to drop and drag information into, and easy to change and manipulate while you work. We create flowcharts by hand using the Federal Rules of Evidence as a guide and then add the flowchart into Lucid Chart, where we can manipulate it, enlarge it, make changes, and move pieces of evidence around from one section to another throughout a trial. But there are many other tools that we have tried in the past and liked, including: Visio (digital tool that has a paid membership base), SmartDraw (another paid membership base), Draw.io, Creately, Google Drawings (free), and Vennage (a free software).
Final Thoughts: The Impact of Evidence Flow Charts on Law Practice
As the legal industry continues to evolve, the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence also stands to benefit from the incorporation of modern, technology-driven solutions. The rise of legal technology tools and resources has the potential to reshape the way attorneys interact with and apply the Federal Rules of Evidence. In particular, the application of flowcharts for organizing and communicating information can enhance understanding, improve consistency, and increase accessibility.
The use of flowcharts for evidentiary issues offers a straightforward way to organize complex information into a format that is easily digestible and navigable. As attorneys are frequently called upon to analyze and apply rules of evidence to a myriad of situations, the ability to visualize each step of that analysis is invaluable. When used effectively, an evidence flowchart is a succinct tool that can streamline the attorney’s workflow , consolidate knowledge and understanding, and assist in pre-trial preparation and trial presentation.
Going forward, we can anticipate that the innovative ways in which evidence flowcharts are applied will continue to grow along with the expansion of the legal tech industry. From deposition preparation to trial presentation, the potential applications for flowcharts within evidentiary contexts hold great promise for the industry. As more attorneys adopt data-driven and technology-focused solutions into their practices, attorneys will continue to value tools that can simplify their work and standardize their analyses.
In sum, while evidence flowcharts are not the only answer to the challenges inhering in evidentiary analysis and application, they may well be the most effective. It seems likely that their application will only continue to increase as legal technology continues to evolve.