On January 1, 2011, by Order of the Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois adopted the Illinois Rules of Evidence (IRE).  The adoption of the IRE formally codifies statutes, case law and rules that were (naturally) previously spread over several sources.  For the most part this is good news: the IRE closely mirrors the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) so those familiar with the FRE should find the transition to the IRE relatively painless.  However, the IRE differs from the FRE in material respects that the practitioner, and definitely the litigator, should be aware of.  To save you time I’ll post the best analysis I’ve found here. The author (Gino L. DiVito) is a former appellate court judge and I think the piece is not only well written but is as concise as one can reasonably expect.

The IRE contains a lot of information.  And evidence is intimidating, particularly for the young lawyer.  In fact it occasionally seems that evidence could be the focus of an entire practice it is so subtle and meandering.  However, almost nothing is as valuable a tool if applied correctly.  It’s cliche but keeping a particular piece of evidence out (or getting one in) often does make or break a case.  I’ve been fortunate enough to be mentored by a great attorney (Steven J. Rosenberg) who has consistently emphasized the importance of proof and rules of evidence.  It’s easy for young lawyers, like me, to forget that proof is a series of small (sometimes painfully small) steps.  Cases do not prove themselves and glossing over facts should not be adequate (for your case) or tolerated (by opposing counsel).  To that end, in the next update I’ll discuss my favorite hearsay issue – the admissibility of a prior consistent statement by a witness testifying at trial.