ILLINOIS RULES OF EVIDENCE APPROVED
In a first for the Illinois Supreme Court, a committee formed to create the Illinois Rules of Evidence, has officially agreed on their codification. We in the legal world hope that that these rules will expedite the trial process and improve the administration of justice in Illinois courts.
As a Chicago personal injury attorney, I have had an opportunity to write about interesting legal news in many legal magazines and newspapers. Earlier this summer, I wrote an article that was featured in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, discussing the absence of the phrase "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" in both the Federal Rules of Evidence and -- at the time -- the budding Illinois Rules of Evidence. The main forcus of my article was that the phrase "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" is nowhere to be found in either form of the rules.
Here is an excerpt from my June 2010 article, entitled Rethinking to a Reasonable Degree:
"Since Illinois has been one of the few states without codified rules of evidence, we still follow the standard set forth in Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The use of the Frye test as the Illinois standard was reaffirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill.2d 63 (2002)."
"The Frye standard, or "general acceptance" test, states: "scientific evidence is only admissible at trial if the methodology or scientific principle upon which the opinion is based is 'sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.'" Donaldson, 199 Ill.2d at 77. Thus, while in federal court the trial judge serves as gatekeeper when it comes to expert testimony, Illinois has rejected that position for judges. Id. at 78-79."
"Instead, the Illinois state court trial judge's role is more limited, applying Frye only if the scientific principle, technique or test offered by the expert to support his or her conclusion is "new" or "novel." Id. As a consequence, judges liberally allow the admission of "pure opinion testimony" based upon an expert's personal experience and training developed via clinical experiences. Noakes v. AMTRAK, 363 Ill. App.3d 851, 858 (1st Dist. 2006). With the potential adoption of an evidence rule similar to Federal Rule 702 in Illinois, it will be interesting to see if and how the manner in which expert testimony is admitted will be affected. I am more curious, however, to know what it will it take for Illinois lawyers to abandon the phrase altogether."
We now know that the Illinois Rule of Evidence regarding expert testimony will continue to adhere to the core principle set forth in Frye -- and "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" remains unaccounted for in any actual rule. In fact, here is a peek the new rule involving expert testimony (all of which can be found at the Illinois Supreme Court's website):
Rule 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
As an Illinois personal injury attorney, I have no doubt that this new era that we are about to dawn on in the practice of Illinois law will prove interesting. The new rules go into effect January 1, 2011. I am eager to see them in action.
