§43.4 Comparison with Federal Rule

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§43.4 COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL RULE

As a result of the 1996 and 2007 amendments to FED. R. CIV. P. 43, the federal rule no longer resembles CR 43 stylistically. The 1996 and 2007 changes to FED. R. CIV. P. 43 were not intended to be substantive, but to make the rule more easily understood and consistent with other rules.

CR 43(a)(1) remains similar to FED. R. CIV. P. 43(a), in part due to the addition of a second sentence to CR 43(a)(1) in 2010. The new sentence is designed to acknowledge the possibility of testimony in open court via transmission from a different location.

CR 43(a)(2) does not have a counterpart in the federal rules. CR 43(a) (2) limits multiple attorneys on the same side of a case from splitting the examination of a given witness. CR 43 requires that when more than one attorney is on the same side of a case, the attorney who conducts the examination of the witness must conduct all of the examination, and must make all the objections and offers of proof during the direct and cross examination.

CR 43(b) and (c) are reserved, referring to the rules of evidence. However, the 1996 amendments to the federal rule eliminated FED....