When the topic of this essay was announced, it didn’t really surprise me -- just another bizarre piece to a bizarre class. As I considered what I would write however, I came to realize that the approach taken in this class, albeit non-conventional, has succeeded in what I feel were its foremost goals. First, it has emphasized the supreme importance of storytelling in litigation and second, it has painted a picture of the justice system as just one of several forums in which a particular story may be told, each with its own underlying values manifested in a set of rules, written or unwritten, which govern the storytelling process. It is this second facet to which I will devote most of my attention.

Any time you tell a story in a particular arena, you must answer a few basic questions. What tools does the forum hold that might enhance my story? What drawbacks does it have that I should consider in crafting my story? What dangers does it present to the attainment of my objectives and which of those can I avoid? The answers to these questions will determine whether a particular forum is conducive to my objectives, and if it is, the best way to go about presenting my story in that forum.

In my mind, then, the web sites and classroom presentations were intended to illustrate the powers and dangers a particular outlet can present. Each of these mediums has its own unique audience, advantages, disadvantages, and dangers. An effective presentation in each requires an analysis of these factors. As a result of this analysis, you develop and use some shorthand rules to guide you as you tailor your presentation to a particular forum. For example, in the context of web design, you generally don’t want to include more than one image per page because the value added by the extra image is usually outweighed by the extra download time

The Federal Rules of Evidence are informed by the same type of analysis. When you think about the objectives of the justice system (finding the truth in a fairly speedy manner; punishing wrongdoers; resolving private disputes in a peaceful manner; doing so consistently and fairly), the audience (judge or jurors), and the dangers which concern us (evidence which might hinder the aforementioned objectives), the rules become fairly easy to understand. Certain things aren’t allowed into evidence because their negative impact outweighs their value. Rules are created based on this reasoning.

The hearsay rule provides a perfect example. The rule generally does not allow one witness to put words in the mouth of another person. The value of such testimony is outweighed by the potential for fabrication. However, there are exceptions to the rule, since under certain circumstances, "a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to justify nonproduction of the declarant in person… even though he may be available." The lessened potential for fabrication is outweighed by the value of such evidence. Similarly, with a web page, if the added download time is less than we expected and the value added to the page is great, we want to include the extra despite the general rule.

While we were not forced to memorize doctrine as students are in the more conventional classes, we learned the relatively simple theory underlying those rules which I have tried to articulate above. The value of this approach didn’t fully dawn on me until I began preparing for this test. The other day I joked about how little doctrine I had learned, yet to my amazement, when I went over our exam questions that night, I got most right because I understood the theory you’d tricked me into learning..

So, while I may not be able to quote any of the rules verbatim, I can give a solid answer as to why they say what they do. To me that is enough. Anyone can look up a rule, but understanding the values that underlie the rules is far more important, for this understanding allows us to tailor our story in the way most suited to the objectives of our justice system and our clients. Based on this understanding, we may decide that the courtroom will not allow us to tell our story in a way that accomplishes our objectives. But the same analysis which informs that decision, the analysis we learned to use in this class, will lead us to one that will, and therein lies the fruit of your labor, at least in one student’s eyes.