The form of reform: revisiting the choice among a creed, a code, and a catalogue

• Author: Edward J. Imwinkelried
• Pages: 21-33

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 13 MARCH 2018 NO. 1

DOI 10.3868/s050-007-018-0003-0

FOCUS

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON EVIDENCE LAW : EAST AND WEST

THE FORM OF REFORM: REVISITING THE CHOICE AMONG A CREED, A CODE,

AND A CATALOGUE

Edward J. Imwinkelried

Abstract In the past, international Evidence law reformers have focused primarily on

substantive evidentiary doctrines. However, for reforms to be effective, the courts and

legislatures must state the revised doctrines in a form that promotes the overall

objectives of the legal system. The basic choice facing reformers is among a creed

identifying broad goals, a code stating flexible principles, and a catalogue prescribing

detailed rules. In the past, especially in the United States, there was a consensus among

Evidence scholars that the code format is preferable. However, if a key objective of a

national legal system is to encourage pretrial disposition of cases, the courts and

legislatures should give serious thought to utilizing a catalogue format. That format is

especially attractive in the doctrinal areas such as privilege in which evidentiary rules

are intended to affect primary behavior outside the courtroom.

Keywords evidence reform, evidence legislation, evidence rules, creed, code, catalogue

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 22

I. THE GENERAL CHOICE .............................................................................................. 22

A. Reliance on Trial as the Primary Method of Resolving Lawsuits ....................... 24

B. Desirability of Relying on Trial as the Primary Method of Resolving

Lawsuits............................................................................................................... 24

C. Judiciary’s Competence to Wield Considerable Discretion................................ 26

II. SPECIFIC DOCTRINAL AREAS................................................................................... 27

A. Rules Intended Primarily to Regulate the Behavior of Witnesses ....................... 27

B. Rules Intended Primarily to Regulate the Behavior of the Trier of Fact............. 27

C. Rules Affecting Primary Behavior Outside Court............................................... 28

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 32

* Edward Imwinkelried, J.D. University of San Francisco, San Francisco, USA; Professor, University of

California, Davis School of Law, Davis, California 95616. Contact: ejmwinkelried@ucdavis.edu

This article is based on Professor Imwinkelried’s keynote address at the Sixth ICELFS in Baltimore,

Maryland, USA in 2017.