Jeremy Thomas

Mrs. McMennamy
Capstone
August 24, 2016
Summer Track Hour Reflection #2
Although there was not a definitive timeline or sectioning of the class where we studied
these, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) were easily one of the most crucial and important
things that I learned in this course. In short, the FRE are the governing principles and legal
producers that are required to be followed during trial. However, like the rules to any game,
unless they are properly enforced, moderated, and observed, they do not matter. So, in order to
provide the most fair, unbiased trial in attempt to reach the impossibly high standard of justice,
these rules are in place.
These rules manifest themselves through all aspects of trial. They are full of specific
clauses and have exceptions, and in many times there are exceptions to even those exceptions.
Although most lawyers are familiar with the FRE, no one knows them all. In fact, it is common
practice to take them with you during trial (which we did). However, like any form of outline, or
aide, you must first be familiar with the material being supplemented. For the purposes of trial,
we entirely skipped certain portions of the FRE, like the section that specifically deals with
sexual assault. However, I am confident that I know more about the rules of evidence than some
attorneys do (as we witnessed during the trials that we observed), which says a lot.
Without going into specifics, two patterns emerge while reading the rules of evidence.
The first being that rules are added progressively, on a case by case basis. A prime example
would be Miranda v. Arizona, a seminal case from which we now to have to our Miranda
rights read to us, otherwise a trial can be completely thrown out. Yet, even in the most extreme
cases, these rules arent retroactive. Largely because of the scale of the United States legal
system. It is a massive undertaking, the largest in the world. When put into consideration with
conceptual titles such as mass incarceration or frivolous confinement, it makes one wonder the
true merits of such a system and whether or not anyone is actually being helped by it.
The second pattern that emerges is the motif of prejudicial versus probative, which is
very revealing about the legal system and process as a whole. Prejudicial versus probative are
two values that are consistently debated over the course of trial. They effectively mean, bias
versus fact. The test of any piece of evidence in question to be moved into evidence formally, is
whether or not the prejudicial value of said piece of evidence outweighs its probative value.
Which fundamentally means that nowhere in the legal system is there a search for the truth. It
still amazes me to think about it, and it truly does make sense, and s consistent with other
theories presented through other facets of the system. Yet, it does make one wonder, should we

be searching for the truth, or is fair the best that we can do? In many instances, because of these
very rules, that may be occasionally updated, innocent people go to jail. Are these innocents to
suffer for the sake of the so-called safety of the rest of us from a pool of people who have been
irrevocably branded as criminals? For every question that I had answered from this course, I had
a dozen that went unanswered, and it is my belief that these answers need to be found, because
with out them, were merely acting on tradition, which has almost never served anyone well.