Codifying Illinois’ rules of evidence

"Currently, as every litigator knows, Illinois’ rules of evidence are scattered through case law, statutes, and supreme court rules, making it a challenge to locate and identify any given evidentiary rule," Helen Gunnarsson writes in the not-yet-published May Illinois Bar Journal. "Recognizing the resulting inefficiency," she continues, "Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald made codification of those rules a primary goal during his term at the court’s helm. "Taking a giant step toward achieving that goal, the Illinois Supreme Court Special Committee on Illinois Evidence will hold public hearings next month on proposed new rules that would reorganize and codify Illinois’s evidence rules. The hearings are scheduled for May 18 in Chicago and May 20 in Springfield." "In November 2008, Fitzgerald appointed 19 lawyers and judges with a broad range of experience in civil and criminal litigation to serve on the special committee. Chairing the committee was Justice Donald Hudson of the Illinois Appellate Court’s Second District. "In addition to prosecutors, defense attorneys, civil law practitioners, and judges, the committee included two law professors: John Marshall Law School Professor Ralph Ruebner, the committee’s reporter, and University of Miami Law School Professor Michael Graham, formerly of the University of Illinois and co-author of the bible of Illinois evidentiary law, Cleary and Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence, who acted as the committee’s advisor. "The committee began meeting the month after its appointment, Hudson said, and continued to meet monthly thereafter through October 2009, with Fitzgerald attending all or nearly all of the meetings. At the outset, the members recognized that its charge from the court was to identify and codify existing evidentiary law, Hudson said. For convenience and ease of reference, the committee decided that it would follow the topical outline and numerical sequence of the federal rules. "'We felt it would facilitate comparison and serve as a good point of reference,' Hudson said. Agreeing, Graham noted that 44 U.S. jurisdictions have adopted evidentiary codes modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence. "'Meetings were thorough and well attended,' said Graham. 'There was no rushing.' The committee reviewed every rule individually, Hudson said, being careful to first identify the current rules without altering them in any way. 'This was first and foremost an organizational task,' Hudson emphasized, not a revisionary project. 'These proposed rules do not purport to abrogate or change existing statutory rules of evidence.' "Hudson declined to discuss specific aspects of the committee’s review or proposal, saying the committee wanted its proposal to speak for itself and did not wish to undermine the public hearing process. But, he admitted, identifying and organizing all of the state rules of evidence was a lot of work. "Praising the committee for its thoroughness and care, he said, 'We went through a draft of every rule and voted on them, one at a time.' The committee achieved a consensus on most of the rules, Hudson said, ending up with a 69-page draft code of evidence, available on the Illinois Supreme Court’s website at http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Public_Hearings/Illinois_Evidence.asp "A former trial judge himself, Hudson emphasized the benefit to the legal system that will result from the supreme court’s initiative. 'Having all of the basic rules of evidence in one handy, authoritative source will substantially increase the efficiency of the trial process as well as expedite the resolution of cases on trial for the benefit of the practicing bar, the judiciary, and the litigants involved.'" Want to comment on the new rules? Written comments are due May 4; to testify, notify the committee by May 10. For more, see the court's press release at http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Public_Hearings/2010/Ill_Evidence/ILEvidence_Notice.pdf