This letter from two Evidence law professors describes ongoing controversy over the proposed amendment to FRE 609 we discussed and the REA process.
To give some background and terminology: There is a Standing Committee, which is the least step before SCOTUS for all rules. There is an Advisory Committee for each set of rules (Civil, Criminal, Evidence, and Bankruptcy). And there is an Executive Committee that serves as an executive body for the process but does not draft the rules. The Advisory Committee does the initial work on a rule, submits a final proposal to the Standing Committee for approval, which sends its final proposal to SCOTUS.
Here, the Evidence Rules Committee and the Standing Committee approved the amendment; the Standing Committee put it out for final public comment, the final step before approval. But then the Executive Committee convinced the Standing Committee to pull the proposal and send it back to the Evidence Committee.
The letter also describes the longstanding controversy and criticism around 609 (which we touched on in class--deter criminal defendants from testifying and contribute to wrongful convictions), the many years of proposals (going back decades) to change or repeal, and the ultimately modest scope of the amendment.
