![]() The Committee deemed the proviso to be necessary in the light of the Advisory Committee's view (see its note to Court Rule 501) that this result is not mandated under Erie. 64 (1938), a result in accord with current federal court decisions. The proviso is designed to require the application of State privilege law in civil actions and proceedings governed by Erie R. ![]() The Committee also included in its amendment a proviso modeled after Rule 302 and similar to language added by the Committee to Rule 601 relating to the competency of witnesses. The words “person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof” were added by the Committee to the lone term “witness” used in Rule 26 to make clear that, as under present law, not only witnesses may have privileges. ![]() That standard, derived from Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, mandates the application of the principles of the common law as interpreted by the Courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. Instead, the Committee, through a single Rule, 501, left the law of privileges in its present state and further provided that privileges shall continue to be developed by the courts of the United States under a uniform standard applicable both in civil and criminal cases. The Committee amended Article V to eliminate all of the Court's specific Rules on privileges. The three remaining Rules addressed collateral problems as to waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure, privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege, comment upon or inference from a claim of privilege, and jury instruction with regard thereto. Another Rule provided that only those privileges set forth in Article V or in some other Act of Congress could be recognized by the federal courts. required reports, lawyer-client, psychotherapist-patient, husband-wife, communications to clergymen, political vote, trade secrets, secrets of state and other official information, and identity of informer). Nine of those Rules defined specific non-constitutional privileges which the federal courts must recognize (i.e. 93–650Īrticle V as submitted to Congress contained thirteen Rules. Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. The common law - as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience - governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise:īut in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |