MRE 702 and MRE 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, tightening the language governing expert witness testimony and expanding the corroboration requirement for statements against interest offered to exculpate an accused.
MRE 702: Clarifying the Expert Opinion Standard
The amendment to MRE 702 makes a textual adjustment to subsection (d), which addresses whether an expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case. The revised text reads:
the expert’s opinion has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The previous version used the phrasing “reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” 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. The revised phrasing makes that requirement more direct.
For practitioners, this reinforces that admissibility challenges under MRE 702 should focus on whether the opinion as offered reflects a reliable connection between the methodology and the specific facts at issue. The proponent must still demonstrate, under the more-likely-than-not standard, that all factors for admission are satisfied — including this one.
MRE 804(b)(4)(B): Corroboration Now Required for All Criminal-Liability Statements
The more consequential change is to MRE 804(b)(4)(B), the statement-against-interest exception when offered to exculpate the accused. The prior rule conditioned the corroboration requirement with limiting language — corroborating circumstances were required only “if it tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability,” a clause that appeared at the end of the sentence and created potential ambiguity about the scope of the requirement.
The amended rule eliminates that ambiguity:
if the statement tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability and is offered to exculpate the accused, it must be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness.
The revision restructures the sentence so that the corroboration requirement applies directly and unambiguously to any statement that both exposes the declarant to criminal liability and is offered to exculpate the accused. The conditional clause that appeared at the end of the prior version is removed.
As the staff comment notes, the amendment requires corroborating circumstances of trustworthiness for any such statement. Defense counsel seeking to admit a third-party confession or inculpatory statement under this exception must be prepared to identify corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate trustworthiness. For prosecutors, the revised text provides a cleaner basis to challenge inadequately corroborated exculpatory hearsay.
Practical Takeaways
Attorneys dealing with expert testimony should review their motion practice under MRE 702 to ensure arguments for and against admissibility are framed around whether the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of principles and methods to the case facts. On the hearsay side, any pending or upcoming criminal matter involving a potential third-party exculpatory statement should be evaluated under the amended MRE 804(b)(4)(B) standard, which now unambiguously demands corroboration.
The amended rules are published in the Michigan Rules of Court available from Michigan Legal Publishing Ltd. You can find our current edition at michlp.com.