<i>KLM v. Tuller</i>: A New Approach to Admissibility of Prior Statements of a Witness

Within the past few years, a number of important cases have been decided by federal courts involving difficult points of evidence law, suggesting a trend toward liberality in admission of evidence. On the face of the opinions many of these decisions are influenced by the clear direction of the Federal Rules of Procedure, both civil and criminal. Some are also obviously influenced by the discussion and study engendered by the Model Code of Evidence and the Uniform Rules of Evidence. These decisions show a strong desire to reexamine the old rules of exclusion.

Courts today are consistently faced with the question of whether the reasons thought to support those rules still apply today in view of modern procedural devices such as discovery, which can and usually do take much of the element of surprise out of trials. The trend for liberality by the courts may be influenced by the feeling that juries are better educated today than they were 100 years ago when many of the evidence rules were being evolved, and that lawyers are better prepared to use the adversary system of litigation. Both of these considerations suggest that much relevant evidence could be admitted in modern trials without running the danger of its being erroneously evaluated by a jury.