Also known as: Uniform Evidence Rule · UER · Uniform Rules of Evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A compilation of model rules governing the admissibility of evidence and the conduct of proof at trial. The rules supply standards for authenticating writings, proving the contents of lost documents, and regulating privileges and testimonial compulsion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Stone Production and Union Assembly signed a three-year supply agreement that a fire later destroyed. Stone retained an unsigned digital template matching the signed version and executives from both firms exchanged confirmatory emails. Under the Uniform Evidence Rules, Stone may introduce the template and oral testimony to establish the memorandum's contents despite the loss of the original.
A grand jury subpoenas reporter Branzburg to identify confidential sources who described illegal drug activity. The Uniform Evidence Rules supply the framework for determining whether a qualified reporter's privilege limits compelled disclosure and how any such protection interacts with the duty to testify.
The government calls the wife of defendant Trammel to testify about his drug importation activities. The Uniform Evidence Rules determine whether the adverse spousal testimony privilege survives and whether the witness spouse may choose to testify over the defendant's objection.
Prosecutors seek to introduce a witness's earlier inconsistent statement identifying Green as the shooter. The Uniform Evidence Rules govern whether the prior statement qualifies as non-hearsay or falls within an exception when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination.
Mitchell remains silent during the sentencing hearing after his conviction. The Uniform Evidence Rules frame whether the sentencing court may draw an adverse inference from that silence without violating protections against compelled self-incrimination.
The prosecutor argues to the jury that Griffin could have taken the stand to deny the charges if he were innocent. The Uniform Evidence Rules prohibit such comment because it would penalize the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination.
The rules permit proof of a lost memorandum's contents through an unsigned copy or oral testimony. This approach treats the Statute of Frauds as serving an evidentiary purpose without converting it into a formal rule of evidence.
Supporting sources
The rules supply the analytical framework for weighing any qualified privilege against the general duty to testify. Courts balance the need for evidence against the policies supporting source protection.
…to exclude all adverse testimony of his spouse. See American Law Institute, Model Code of Evidence, Rule 215 (1942). In 1953 the Uniform Rules of Evidence, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, followed a similar course; it limited the privilege to confidential communications and “abolishe[d] the rule,…
…and Exchange Commission , 87 F. 2d 377, 378 (CA2 1937) (L. Hand, J.). Neither the ALI's Model Code of Evidence (1942), the Uniform Rules of Evidence
…judge on the defendant’s failure to take the stand is hardly an idiosyncratic aberration. The Model Code of Evidence, and the Uniform Rules of Evidence
…This view is consistent with current trends in the law. Compare National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,
…shall first give the concrete details upon which the inference or description is founded, so far as feasible. (Citing Uniform Rules of Evidence
Supporting sources
Modern formulations vest the privilege in the witness spouse alone. The witness may choose to testify even if the defendant objects.
Supporting sources
The statement is admissible when the declarant testifies at trial and is available for cross-examination about the earlier statement. This satisfies confrontation concerns while allowing the fact-finder to assess credibility.
The rules prohibit using silence at sentencing to increase punishment when the defendant has already been convicted. Such an inference would penalize the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
The rules forbid such comment because it imposes a penalty on the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination and invites the jury to draw an impermissible inference.
Supporting sources