Home > Journals > WMLR > Vol. 59 (2017-2018) > Iss. 3 (2018)
William & Mary Law Review
Abstract
This article addresses the ongoing debate surrounding the hearsay exceptions outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 803, highlighting recent criticisms and potential reforms. Scholars and practitioners have called for either a comprehensive overhaul or targeted amendments to improve reliability and efficiency in hearsay rules. The article critiques these proposals, noting that sweeping changes risk losing valuable aspects of existing doctrine, while narrow, exception-specific amendments may fail to address systemic issues. As a solution, it advocates for the application of a "trustworthiness exception" similar to that found in the business and public records exceptions to additional Rule 803 exceptions. This change would allow hearsay statements within Rule 803 to be presumptively admissible, but would provide a mechanism for opponents to challenge statements deemed untrustworthy in specific contexts. This approach balances the benefits of categorical hearsay exceptions with flexibility for addressing statements that pose particular reliability concerns, suggesting a moderate path forward for reforming hearsay doctrine.