In 1965, Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed an advisory committee of fifteen to draft the new rules.
After a long delay blamed on the Watergate scandal, the FRE became federal law on January 2, 1975, when President Ford signed An Act to Establish Rules of Evidence for Certain Courts and Proceedings, Pub.
Much of the debate on the Rules stemmed from concerns that came to lawmakers' attention due to the Watergate scandal, particularly questions of privilege.
Even so, there are some rules that perpetuate the historical mistrust of jurors, expressly limiting the kind of evidence they may receive or the purpose for which they may consider it.
At the same time, the Rules center on a few basic ideas – relevance, unfair surprise, efficiency, reliability, and overall fairness of the adversary process.
The Rules grant trial judges broad discretion to admit evidence in the face of competing arguments from the parties.
The Rules define relevance broadly and relax the common-law prohibitions on witnesses' competence to testify.
[11] The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.One of the most common competing interests is the danger of prejudice.
An example of otherwise relevant testimony being barred for the danger of unfair prejudice is as follows: A person is on trial for committing a crime.
On cross examination it is generally relevant to delve into specifics about any alleged alibi such as who was there, what type of meeting it was etc.
Just as the Uniform Rules of Evidence had, the advisory committee draft of the rules that the Supreme Court formally transmitted to Congress codified nine evidentiary privileges – required reports, attorney-client, psychotherapist-patient, husband-wife, communications to clergymen, political vote, trade secrets, official secrets, and identity of informer.
Previously the "equivalence" standard was difficult for the court system to apply, so it was eliminated and replaced with considering corroborating evidence in a uniform approach.
[18] On December 1, 2020, there was an amendment to Rule 404(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts, to provide additional notice requirements in the prosecution of a criminal case.