I

F O C U S 1 CrjZ

F A C U

1 e

I W I

c L

n n EC e x U I

EC

I

- *

1

+ .

L T Y

2*>1< ;,;+* 7;; - ?.

I PROFESSOR

OF LAW

B.A. IMRVARD

COLLEGE,

J.D. HAKVARD

LAW SCHOOL,

D.PHIL.

UNIVERSm

IF MYWIFE ORDERS A MBAT DISH at a restaurant, I'll usually get seafood - but if she orders fish I won't. We'll share,'and 1 like variety This may help explain not only why I am ddettantish in the courses 1 teach but also why my two biggest academic projects have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

A dozen years ago, I agreed to become general editor of The New Wiore , the successor treatise to Wigmore on Evrdence. And I also decided to write the portion of the treatise on the law of hearsay As anyone who has taken a course in evidence knows, hearsay is a baffling doctrine, much disliked and manipulated. But I believe that if we dig deep enough under the muck, we find a principle of enormous importance, which lies at the heart of the Sixth Amendmentk Confrontation Clause: the adjudicative system must not allow a person, whether in court or outside, to create testimony for use against a criminal defendant unless the witness is testifying under oath, in the presence of the

L

defendant, and subject to cross-examination. This is a narrow principle - it only applies ta a hmited set of out-of-court statements, those that are in some sense "testimonial" - and I wouldn't ring it with an array of exceptions. (The defendant5 right is subject to forfeiture if b own misconduct makes confrontation infeasible.) I believe that if this principle were well understood and protected, we could happily do with a much simpler body of law dealing with secondary evidence, or even with no such law at all. T?us reconceptualization would work a large change in the way litigation is conducted - but it would be more efficient, better informed, and also more protective of defendants' rights.

I've churned out a fair number of articles on evidentialy law, and two ehtions of a coursebook, and much of this writing has been on hearsay and confrontation. But worlang out my ideas in the treatise itself is painfully slow work. I am trying to offer help to lawyers and judges on a vast array of docuinal issues - but at the same time to nudge the law rather unsubtly from its current framework into the one I favor. I have about 1,000 pages of manuscript done, and I am hoping to pubhsh the first part w i t h a couple of years. Recognving the finiteness of life, I have taken on a co-author - an excellent scholar from Indiana University named Aviva Orenstein - for the second part.

By the time we get done, I hope to have made substantial progress on my other project. It has an

8 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL

C- f?&ld- 0fE.Iadmsupposedtu wrie &g $dame on the Hu@ Can (193041). but he -mble to ffrrjisk the job. I wsis lucky e n o u g b a ~ g ~ l r k r ~ t , j n p n n b e c a u ~ e I had w r i a r n ~ ~ ~ n r 0 a o n G h a r k s E ~ Hughes s Chief Job&. Thh period was one of h u g e ~ ~ & ~ ~ n - I d i t Vie crucible of tk Constitu.tiann - with FDRli attenqt tm pPdc the Court as its dramatic centerpiece. In my v& court-packing hPS less PO do with the t ~ f 0 ~ t i r n fhm is SQmtirns supposed, tMew I hawe elsbi~mtd at some length in "Mrching Time and Q&e Thought I%pe-ts: The Hughes Court and C~z@tl~,tbmd Tdrmattion," 142 Uitiversity

Rmkw 1891 (1994). 1 h e this &* lllmlscripts, the permg&tb9 gRd the disputes of an era that is

tta* rn I€. 1 am very %nunate - ahve all in my family, and

in having work, in the dgssmorn and out, that I wake up to each day with zest, and the opportunity to do it in the stimulating, humane, and supportive nvimnment that the Law School provides.

Emily Ir(. Pamr rhird Year Law Student I B . Pdnceton Univmrstty

'Ptofeuot Fridman Is both I great teachrr and a gmat &tor. Hs ha8 haen an ~rnportaat part of my Iwo Ban at tbs Unhrenlly of pichigan Law abool, both

and out of the rrlrstraorn, I l i the clamroam, Prohttar !ri!isdmanL oplsam~ and bnedy enabh hhn to hci~ltate frank difcurrian, b n on such mtravenlbl matters mahartfun and i f f i rmain alloa. kPlwar

Friedman never hides behind the podium, but is instead forthsomlng wlth his own opinians, which, rather than intimidating students, makes them feel mom eomtortable tbarlng their opinions.

"Outside of the classroom, Professor Friedman h one of the mast accessibla professors in the Law School. He is genuinely lntemstsd in his students, bath as psople and as young lawyers. He is always willing to talk to students struggling 10 decide on a caner path, and is candid about his own expariences as a lawyer and a professor.

I '

S A M U E L R. G R O S S Thomas and Mabel Long Professor of Law A.B. Columbia Colege, J.D. University of California atBerkeley School of Law

~ ~ l e ~ p i y m ~ ~ H e i s a n ~ ~ ~ e c h o E a t HirmllInWfs~law,wberehetakedoutm~daimcreacentral~fnthe appihdon of a&dad mwning (Bayealen analgsIe) to evidentiaw issues, and developed an orlgind h m e w d Bw u- the heanmy rule

" W a h ~ ~ t o ~ ~ ~ I n ~ l a w h e h a s a l s o w r i t t e n a b o u t t h e dmrae. mndMonel rdmmz, the use of photographs in evidence, a d

hpahnent with chaFacter evidenoe, among other issues, not to mention taking on the amurn r o l e o f ~ ~ ~ o f t h e n e w ~ ~ P e P a i o n o ~ ~ d a s s t E t r e a t i s e .

Wlndthat"eaot~it;laewrftesinother~en~m~thevlcepdenqdthe U n t t e d S t a & s , ~ ~ ~ theuseof~ptorychaniengeeincrimidtrials,andeoon.

e "Ilbu migbt thtal; that eomeone who writes that much must simply mkulate bland, well-

w~nltotionaNotfntheleaetRlchis~)~imtorlginal,and~te~~~con~ He doeedt hwitate to pueh new ideae, end- judging from the volume of published mqmnees to lab artides - b quite swcadbl at provohlng other scholanr. But he is the most hable pnaDceteuronecanImaelne.

"Not o ~ I s R l & o n e o f d c e ~ ~ , o u t p p I n g a n d ~ w p e o ~ e I ~ m e t , he mmaga to maintain that personality even cre he emagea people with his unconwntional idem. In a ant artide respondiug to one of Rich pmposals, a severe critic complained: 'How does one maintain the quid& he for a proper academic quarrel with a man who first quotes his dhpqbg judgment [about his own workl and MOWFI with amsming hotnote citation to the birth certiacate of W daughter [attestbg to the continued s u m of his marriage all the same]? I am a lbgehr dhmed,' (H. Richard U d k , IJmmmtructed and Umpmtant: A Reply to P m h Fkkbm& Respoqn 43 D u b h u bd8M (1994).

W a r e a l l ~ & a n d l u ~ t o b Wch~mongu~.~'

"He alw has great insight into people. Aftet witnessing my participation in ths heated discuaions in our ConstMonal taw class, he knew l would enjoy bring a litigator svan U'iaugh I was still ansum rnysblt. 'You seem to like tbe give-and* take of the Eiassmam,' be saild to me. Well, than Is never a shortage of that when Prolessor Friedman ia around,"