Evidence Q Forum

LawlStoodent · Post by **LawlStoodent** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:12 pm

I'm working on my evidence outline and our textbook and class focus has been the new rules that came out this year. I have the Emanuel but that is based on the pre-2011 rules.

Is it safe to use the Emanuel as a study guide? Or just scrap it?

LeDique · Post by **LeDique** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:22 pm

I didn't even realize there were major amendments in 2011. The notes for most of them through 300 say: "The language of Rule 104 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility."

So yeah, don't depend on it for the language of the rules, but the implementation ought to be the same = should be fine.

LawlStoodent · Post by **LawlStoodent** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:34 pm

LeDique wrote:I didn't even realize there were major amendments in 2011. The notes for most of them through 300 say: "The language of Rule 104 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility."

So yeah, don't depend on it for the language of the rules, but the implementation ought to be the same = should be fine.

Ahh.. didn't see that disclaimer. Thanks so much!

Gorki · Post by **Gorki** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:35 pm

LawlStoodent wrote:I'm working on my evidence outline and our textbook and class focus has been the new rules that came out this year. I have the Emanuel but that is based on the pre-2011 rules.

Is it safe to use the Emanuel as a study guide? Or just scrap it?

Just make sure to be remember the literal construction of the new rules. There were a few areas where my text goes on and on about how a particular, vaguely phrased rule means X, when the new rule literally just tells the reader it means X.

Gamecubesupreme · Post by **Gamecubesupreme** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:59 pm

Not sure how big your professor is on the Confrontation Clause, but that area changed a lot within the last couple of years.

Evidence Q Forum

Evidence Q

Re: Evidence Q

Re: Evidence Q

Re: Evidence Q

Re: Evidence Q

Register now to search topics and post comments!