First Page
1903
Abstract
Rationality is deeply embedded in both the Rules themselves and the ways they are interpreted. David Leonard stated that rationality "lies at the heart of modern evidentiary principles" because relevance itself is "grounded in rationality." Of the many reasons we have evidence rules-to streamline trials, foster legitimacy and predictability, and promote due process-encouraging "rational fact- finding" is often at the top of this list.
In contemporary evidence law the hegemonic goal-of-rationality is "often taken for granted" and can be traced "from Bentham through Wigmore to the present day." It is a "remarkably homogeneous" view that has "dominated legal scholarship for most of the twentieth century."" Because rationality is a "suitcase word," however, before we can go anywhere with it we must unpack it a little. So, what does rationality mean in evidence law?
People likely disagree on the margins about what rationality means. But the typical view embedded in evidence scholarship defines rationality as drawing generalizations from facts and logical reasoning, as opposed to making decisions based on intuitions or feelings. Rationality thus conceived renders emotion "a signal that an argument is prejudicial or transparently manipulative." For evidence law, rationality means arguments that flow from the mind, as opposed to the heart.
Recommended Citation
Teneille R. Brown Professor of Law and Associate Dean,
Shifting the Male Gaze of Evidence,
76 Vanderbilt Law Review
1903
(2023)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol76/iss6/13