Addressing the Disconnect

July 9, 2015 § 1 Comment

The MSSC is soliciting comments on an important proposed amendment to MRE 802 and the comment to MRE 804 . You can find the proposed rule and comment changes at this link.

These changes address the current inconsistency between MRCP 32 and MRE 802. MRCP 32(a)(3)(E) makes it possible to offer the testimony of a “medical doctor” via deposition instead of by personal appearance, but MRE 802 does not allow for its admissibility unless the physician meets one of the enumerated exceptions, and mere physicianhood is not one of them. The MRE prevails, though, because MRE 1103 states that “All evidentiary rules, whether provided by statute, court decision or court rule, which are inconsistent with the [MRE] are hereby repealed.”

We’ve posted about this problem here before. That previous post spells out how lawyers got caught in the gap between the two rules and wound up getting hurt. You don’t want something like that to happen to you.

§ One Response to Addressing the Disconnect

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Addressing the Disconnect at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.

meta

%d bloggers like this: