MRE 702 & 804 Amendments: Expert Witness Standards and Statements Against Interest (Effective May 1, 2024)

The Michigan Supreme Court amended Rules 702 and 804 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, effective May 1, 2024, refining the language governing expert witness admissibility and expanding the corroboration requirement for statements against interest.

MRE 702: Expert Witness Testimony

The amendment to Rule 702 makes a targeted change to subsection (d). The amendment clarifies what must satisfy the reliability requirement — specifically, that it is the expert’s opinion that must reflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The prior tracked-changes text reads:

the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application ofhas reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The final amended text of subsection (d) reads:

the expert’s opinion has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The revised phrasing — “has reliably applied” — shifts the focus to the expert’s conduct in applying the methodology, rather than asking whether the resulting opinion merely “reflects” a reliable application. In practice, this means courts should scrutinize the expert’s process and whether it was carried out reliably, not just whether the opinion looks like it was derived from sound methodology. For attorneys offering expert testimony, this reinforces the need to develop a record showing how the expert actually applied the relevant principles and methods to the specific facts at issue — not just that the methodology itself is generally accepted.

As the staff comment explains, the amendment “clarifies that it is the expert’s opinion that must reflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case.”

MRE 804(b)(4)(B): Statements Against Interest

The more consequential change is to the hearsay exception for statements against interest under MRE 804(b)(4)(B). Previously, the corroboration requirement — that the statement “be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness” — applied only when the statement was offered to exculpate the accused. The amended rule removes that limitation.

The prior text conditioned the corroboration requirement on two things: the statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and the statement being offered to exculpate the accused. Under the amended rule, the corroboration requirement applies to any statement that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability, regardless of which party offers it and for what purpose.

As the staff comment explains, the amendment “requires corroborating circumstances of trustworthiness for any statement against interest that exposes a declarant to criminal liability.”

For criminal defense attorneys, this cuts both ways. Defendants can no longer rely on a bare statement against penal interest to exculpate their client without corroboration — but neither can prosecutors use such statements without meeting the same standard. Practitioners on both sides should be prepared to address corroboration at the time they offer or oppose these statements.

For civil practitioners, the change is unlikely to have significant day-to-day impact, but the principle is worth noting in cases where criminal exposure of a non-party declarant is relevant.

The Michigan Rules of Evidence are reproduced in our Michigan Rules of Court handbook. You can find the current edition at michlp.com.