This AI system is temporarily under construction, please excuse our mess. The responses provided are not legal advice, and users must independently verify all information.
Login Upgrade About Treatise

Ethical And Practical Conundrums

G. Alexander Nunn, Ethical And Practical Conundrums in Nunn on Evidence (2025), available at https://nunn.law/ethical-and-practical-conundrums. | View history

Before we delve into the intricacies of specific evidentiary rules in later chapters, it is crucial to understand the foundational landscape upon which these rules operate. The adversarial system, by its very design, creates a series of inherent practical dilemmas and ethical challenges when it comes to the admission and exclusion of evidence. These are not minor operational hiccups; rather, they are profound, systemic tensions that arise from the competing values we ask our legal process to uphold. Our focus here is not on the minutiae of individual rules—those will come—but on the broader philosophical and practical conflicts that are an inescapable feature of any system of evidence, particularly one rooted in the adversarial tradition. We aim to understand the why behind these tensions, to appreciate their depth and pervasiveness, before we consider how specific doctrines attempt to manage them.

Key Overview

At its core, the adversarial system of justice relies on a structured contest between opposing parties to unearth the truth and achieve a just outcome. The rules of evidence serve as the primary regulators of this contest, dictating what information the trier of fact—be it a judge or jury—may consider. However, the goals these rules are designed to serve are often in conflict, leading to fundamental tensions that shape the daily reality of legal practice and the administration of justice. These are not problems to be "solved" in a definitive sense, but rather ongoing challenges that require careful navigation and a constant re-evaluation of our priorities. Understanding these core conflicts is the first step toward a nuanced appreciation of evidence law.

The Lawyer's Tightrope: Zealous Advocacy and the Duty of Truthfulness

One of the most immediate and palpable tensions arises from the lawyer's dual, and sometimes conflicting, obligations: the duty to advocate zealously for their client and the duty of candor toward the tribunal. The adversarial system presupposes that truth is best discovered through a robust, partisan presentation of competing narratives. Each lawyer is expected to present their client's case in the most favorable light possible, aggressively challenging the opponent's evidence and arguments. This principle of zealous advocacy is a cornerstone of effective representation, particularly for those facing the power of the state.

However, this very zeal can rub uncomfortably against the lawyer's coexisting obligation as an officer of the court, sworn to uphold the integrity of the legal process and to refrain from misleading the tribunal. While the system prohibits the knowing presentation of false evidence, it generally does not require a lawyer to affirmatively reveal information detrimental to their client's case, unless specific disclosure rules apply. This creates a delicate, and often ethically fraught, balancing act. An advocate might strategically object to the admission of truthful but damaging evidence on technical grounds, or cross-examine a witness known to be telling the truth in a manner designed to undermine their credibility. These actions, while often permissible and even tactically necessary within the bounds of the adversarial model, highlight a systemic friction between partisan advantage and the unvarnished pursuit of all relevant facts. The very structure that relies on partisan contest to reveal truth simultaneously creates incentives for selective disclosure and strategic maneuvering that can obscure it.

The Crucible of the Courtroom: Real-Time Rule Application Under Pressure

Another significant source of practical dilemmas is the environment in which evidentiary rules must be applied. Unlike the calm, reflective atmosphere of an academic seminar or a judge's chambers where rules can be parsed and debated at length, the trial setting demands instantaneous decisions. Lawyers must raise objections in the heat of the moment, often with incomplete information, and judges must rule on these objections with similar alacrity to maintain the flow of the proceedings. This "pressure-cooker" environment, as some have called it, means that the application of complex, often nuanced, evidentiary standards is inherently challenging.

The need for promptness and finality in courtroom decision-making can sometimes compromise the ideal of perfectly reasoned and consistently applied evidentiary rulings. There is an unavoidable tension between the desire for meticulous, error-free application of the law and the practical necessity of keeping the trial moving forward. This doesn't necessarily imply fault on the part of practitioners or jurists; rather, it reflects a systemic reality that the dynamic, often unpredictable, nature of live testimony and adversarial engagement will invariably lead to imperfections in the evidentiary process. The intricate web of rules, exceptions, and discretionary judgments must be navigated in real time, a task that inevitably carries the risk of error or inconsistency.

Rights, Truth, and the Evidentiary Balance: Protecting Individuals Versus Finding Facts

A profound philosophical tension exists between the goal of protecting fundamental individual rights and the aspiration of achieving maximally accurate factual determinations. Many rules of evidence are not designed solely, or even primarily, to enhance the accuracy of fact-finding. Instead, they serve extrinsic policy goals, such as safeguarding constitutional rights, fostering important societal relationships, or ensuring procedural fairness. For example, exclusionary rules that prevent the admission of evidence obtained through illegal searches or coerced confessions are intended to deter police misconduct and protect due process rights, even if the excluded evidence is highly reliable and directly relevant to guilt or innocence. Similarly, privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege or spousal privilege, protect confidential communications deemed vital to certain relationships, but in doing so, they may shield relevant information from the trier of fact.

This creates an explicit trade-off: the system consciously chooses, in certain circumstances, to subordinate the unbridled search for truth to the protection of other deeply held values. The suppression of reliable evidence because of the manner in which it was obtained, or because of a privilege designed to protect a relationship, can lead to factually "inaccurate" verdicts if accuracy is judged solely by the correspondence of the verdict to the actual underlying events. This tension is a deliberate feature of our system, reflecting a societal judgment that some principles are sufficiently important to warrant the risk of obscuring certain facts from the adjudicative process. The challenge lies in defining the appropriate balance, a task that often involves weighing incommensurable values.

The Cloak of Confidentiality: Client Secrets and the Judicial Quest for Truth

Closely related to the tension between individual rights and truth-finding is the specific challenge posed by client confidentiality, most notably embodied in the attorney-client privilege. This privilege is foundational to the lawyer-client relationship, encouraging clients to communicate openly and honestly with their legal counsel, which in turn enables the lawyer to provide effective representation. The assurance that these communications will remain private is deemed essential for a fair legal process, particularly in an adversarial system where individuals rely on their lawyers to navigate complex legal terrain.

However, this robust protection of client confidences directly collides with the judicial system's interest in accessing all information that might be relevant to resolving a dispute accurately. A lawyer may, and indeed often does, possess information imparted by a client that, if revealed, could dramatically alter the outcome of a case or even expose criminal culpability. Yet, absent very narrow exceptions, the lawyer is ethically and legally bound to preserve that confidence. This means that courts may, by design, operate in a state of deliberate ignorance regarding certain facts, accepting this informational deficit as a necessary cost of upholding the integrity of the attorney-client bond and the right to effective counsel. The tension here is acute: the very mechanism designed to facilitate justice through effective representation can simultaneously withhold information crucial for the court’s truth-seeking mission.

The Judicial Fulcrum: Discretion as a Tool for Managing Tension

In the face of these inherent systemic tensions, judicial discretion emerges as a critical, albeit imperfect, mechanism for management and mediation. Many evidentiary rules are not rigidly prescriptive but instead grant judges considerable latitude in their application. Perhaps the most prominent example in the federal system is Rule 403, which allows judges to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. This kind of discretionary power allows judges to tailor evidentiary rulings to the specific context of each case, attempting to strike a practical balance between competing concerns like probative worth and prejudicial effect, or efficiency and completeness.

Judges also exercise discretion in managing the courtroom, controlling the mode and order of witness interrogation, making preliminary determinations about the admissibility of evidence (including expert testimony under Daubert and its progeny), and generally ensuring the orderly conduct of the trial. This discretionary authority is essential for navigating the real-time pressures of litigation and for mitigating the potential excesses of purely partisan advocacy. However, reliance on judicial discretion is not a panacea. It introduces an element of unpredictability and potential inconsistency, as different judges may reasonably arrive at different conclusions on similar evidentiary questions. Furthermore, judges themselves operate with imperfect information and are subject to their own biases and limitations. Thus, while judicial discretion is indispensable for managing the evidentiary tightrope, it also underscores the inherent imperfection and situational nature of evidentiary justice.

The Unattainable Ideal: The Inevitable Imperfection of Evidentiary Systems

It is a fundamental truth that no system of evidence, regardless of its sophistication or the principles upon which it is built, can achieve perfect accuracy, complete fairness, and absolute protection of all competing values simultaneously. The tensions we have discussed—between advocacy and truth, expediency and thoroughness, individual rights and factual discovery, confidentiality and transparency—are not bugs in the system that can be eliminated through clever rule-drafting or procedural reforms. They are, in many respects, features that arise from the complex and often contradictory goals we ask our legal system to pursue.

Every evidentiary regime represents a series of trade-offs. Choices must be made about which values to prioritize in which contexts, and these choices inevitably mean that other values will be, to some extent, compromised. Efforts to reform evidentiary rules or procedures often simply shift the balance or recalibrate the tensions rather than resolving them outright. For instance, expanding discovery might enhance truth-finding but could also increase litigation costs and burdens. Narrowing privileges might bring more information to light but could chill essential communications. Recognizing this inherent imperfection is not a counsel of despair, but rather an invitation to approach the study and practice of evidence law with a degree of humility and a realistic understanding of its limitations and its ongoing compromises.

A World of Difference? Comparative Approaches to Fundamental Tensions

The way a legal system grapples with these fundamental evidentiary tensions is often a reflection of its broader legal culture and historical development. While our primary focus is the adversarial system characteristic of common law jurisdictions, it is illuminating to briefly consider how other traditions, particularly inquisitorial systems found in many civil law countries, approach these same underlying dilemmas.

Adversarial systems, like that of the United States, tend to emphasize party control over the presentation of evidence, robust cross-examination as a truth-testing mechanism, and a reactive role for the judge in ruling on evidentiary disputes raised by the parties. These systems often feature more elaborate exclusionary rules, reflecting a strong emphasis on protecting individual rights, sometimes at the expense of admitting all relevant evidence. The contest between partisans is seen as the primary engine of truth discovery.

In contrast, inquisitorial systems typically grant a more active and central role to the judge (or a panel of judges) in investigating the facts, gathering evidence, and questioning witnesses. While parties still present arguments and evidence, the process is often conceived as a more collaborative inquiry led by a neutral magistrate. Consequently, these systems may have fewer and less stringent exclusionary rules, placing a greater emphasis on allowing the fact-finder access to a broad range of information, with the judicial investigator tasked with sifting through it. The perceived priority is often a comprehensive factual inquiry directed by the court, potentially with less emphasis on the tactical rights of the parties to control the flow of information.

It's important not to oversimplify; many modern systems incorporate hybrid elements. However, the general orientation of these major traditions reveals different philosophical leanings when confronting the universal dilemmas of evidence. For example, the tension between zealous advocacy and truthfulness might manifest differently where the judge, rather than the parties, bears the primary responsibility for developing the evidentiary record. Similarly, the balance between individual rights and systemic truth-seeking might be struck at a different point when the state, through its judicial officers, is the principal investigator. Despite these variations in approach and emphasis, no system entirely escapes the fundamental trade-offs. The inherent difficulties of balancing competing objectives like efficient adjudication, accurate outcomes, fair procedures, and the protection of vital societal interests are universal challenges in the administration of justice.

Conclusion: Navigating the Enduring Compromises

The law of evidence, particularly within an adversarial framework, is a dynamic and often contentious field precisely because it operates at the confluence of powerful, competing values. The lawyer's precarious balance between fervent client representation and unwavering honesty, the relentless pressure of making critical evidentiary decisions in real-time, the constant calibration between safeguarding individual liberties and the collective pursuit of factual accuracy, and the sacrosanct nature of client confidences weighed against the judiciary’s need for complete information—these are not mere procedural hurdles but profound structural tensions. They are inherent, not accidental, and represent the enduring compromises that any system of justice must make. Judicial discretion, while a vital tool, offers a means of navigating these complexities on a case-by-case basis rather than a definitive resolution. As we proceed to examine specific rules and doctrines, it is this backdrop of inescapable dilemmas and the continuous effort to achieve a workable, if imperfect, balance that will inform our understanding.

Sources

Buy Me A Coffee
Enjoying nunn.ai? Buy me a coffee!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Questions? Comments? Contact alex@nunn.ai | © 2025 Nunn Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved.
Upgrade to PRO