Recent Developments in Evidence Law

摘要

The maritime bar at large, and the Maritime Law Association in particular, have long been concerned with the important goal of substantive uniformity, nationwide and worldwide. Procedural uniformity, for example, that between state and federal courts, generally falls outside the boundary of this concern, although, occasionally, procedural disharmonies get attention and some can be outcome determinative. Among the latter may be disharmonies respecting rules of evidence, in particular, those governing the admissibility of expert testimony since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some states have adopted the federal rule, some have rules less restrictive, while others have rules more restrictive. These differences affect practice, as shown by two examples. In a state court, a defendant impleaded a federal agency, assuring removal of the case to federal court, so as to gain perceived benefits under a federal rule of evidence. In a federal court, after dismissing the federal question claims in a removed action, the court exercised its discretion to remand the case because of a rule of evidence. This paper surveys recent evidentiary decisions in federal and state courts, reviews the 2000 amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and addresses a conflict in the circuits on the related (and delightful) issue of maritime presumptions.