Evidence: Using an Old Supplement Forum
-
twowordsforcouch
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:05 pm
Evidence: Using an Old Supplement
Would it be a bad idea to use an old (from 2007) supplement or Evidence? I have a long drive coming up and am thinking about picking up the Sum and Substance lectures, but they're a little old. Not sure how much this topic has changed in the last decade.
-
merlin-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:21 pm
Re: Evidence: Using an Old Supplement
Should be fine for the majority of it
-
hiima3L
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:26 pm
Re: Evidence: Using an Old Supplement
I can't imagine it would be meaningfully different. Evidence is pretty static.
-
merlin-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:21 pm
Re: Evidence: Using an Old Supplement
Only thing I could think of was social media, and even then most classes won't even address ithiima3L wrote:I can't imagine it would be meaningfully different. Evidence is pretty static.
-
twowordsforcouch
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:05 pm
Re: Evidence: Using an Old Supplement
I guess what I mean to ask is whether or not the Federal Rules of Evidence have changed much over the last 10 years or so. I know they went through a major stylistic revision, but I'm not sure if their substance has changed much.
-
BigZuck
- Posts: 11730
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am
Re: Evidence: Using an Old Supplement
*needs source* so don't quote me on this but I think the whole point of the Garner-led revisions was to make the rules more comprehensible without changing the substance of them at alltwowordsforcouch wrote:I guess what I mean to ask is whether or not the Federal Rules of Evidence have changed much over the last 10 years or so. I know they went through a major stylistic revision, but I'm not sure if their substance has changed much.
