On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law

If there were no juries, would there be a law of evidence? And should there be? These questions are not about whether this or that rule of evidence owes its existence to the institution of the jury, and are thus not about whether particular evidence rules should be modified or eliminated when juries are not present. Nor are they about those many rules of evidence that are premised on such wildly mistaken folk wisdom about jury behavior that they are in desperate need of modification or elimination in light of what we now know from the social sciences about how people in general and juries in particular actually decide and deliberate. Rather, my question is whether the law of evidence, in the large, is so substantially a product of the institution of the jury itself that if juries did not exist, then vast swaths of evidence law would, and should, not exist as well. This question is not merely of academic or historical interest. Numerous American trial judges, echoing what scholars since Jeremy Bentham have urged, essentially discard large chunks of the law of evidence when they sit without a jury. Time and again, especially in civil litigation and more than occasionally even in criminal cases, objections to the admissibility of evidence are met with the judicial re-