The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted in 1975 to supplant a common law patchwork of evidentiary principles and to bring uniformity and consistency to the admissibility of evidence throughout the federal system. Although the Rules do not govern state proceedings, they have served as an important blueprint for state rulemakers. Many states have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence wholesale or at least in large part. In certain critical respects, however, some state evidence codes chart their own course and include evidentiary standards that deviate from the federal model. These state variations, tested alternatives to federal evidentiary standards that can serve as prototypes for amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, offer a unique opportunity for the Federal Evidence Advisory Committee. In essence, state evidence variations can serve as role models in reverse, offering a window into an alternative evidentiary universe for federal rulemakers.

This Article explores the impact of state variations on the Federal Rules of Evidence, both retrospectively and with an eye toward the future. The Article explores the state inspiration for new Federal Rule of Evidence 107, as well as state variations that influenced proposed amendments to Rule 609 governing prior conviction impeachment and to Rule 801(d)(1)(A) regulating the admissibility of a testifying witness’s prior inconsistent statements. The Article next looks to the future, examining state variations that bring technological updates to the fundamental concept of judicial notice, that seek to protect criminal defendants from the admission of unproven prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, and that codify a comprehensive roadmap of all commonly utilized methods of impeaching and rehabilitating testifying witnesses. The Article concludes with suggestions for future amendment alternatives steeped in the state experience that could soon be on the federal horizon.