Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 38

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

This  state  of  affairs  sparked  efforts  to  eliminate  hypo-
thetical questions as a requirement.  See, e.g., 1 Wigmore
2d §686, at 1094 (“The Hypothetical Question must go, as a 
requirement.    Its  abuses  have  become  so  obstructive  and 
nauseous that no remedy short of extirpation will suffice” 
(emphasis  deleted)).    Change  began  first  in  the  courts, 
which allowed experts to sit through trial and then provide
their  opinion  “ ‘upon  the  evidence.’ ”    3  C.  Chamberlayne,
Modern  Law  of  Evidence  §§2482,  2483,  pp.  3343–3346 
(1912).

More formalized rule changes soon followed.  In 1937, the 
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws incorporated a pro-
vision in their Model Expert Testimony Act that permitted 
experts to give their opinions without preliminarily disclos-
ing  their  underlying  facts  or  data.    Advisory  Committee’s 
Notes to Fed. Rule Evid. 705.  In quick succession, both the 
Model Code of Evidence, issued by the American Law Insti-
tute in 1942, and the Uniform Rules of Evidence, approved 
by  the  American  Bar  Association  in  1953,  recommended 
abandonment  of  hypothetical  questions.    See  ALI,  Model 
Code of Evidence Rule 409, Comment b, p. 211 (the hypo-
thetical  question  “has  been  so  grossly  abused  as  to  be  al-
most a scandal”); Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule 58, Com-
ment,  p.  194  (“This  rule  does  away  with  the  necessity  of
following  the  practice  (grossly  abused)  of  using  the  hypo-
thetical question”).  In 1972, the Federal Rules of Evidence 
followed  suit  with  Rules  703  and  705,  and  many  States 
made similar changes. 

B 
What replaced hypotheticals was the procedure exempli-
fied by the Federal Rules of Evidence.1  Rule 703 provides 

—————— 

1 I  refer  to  the  Federal  Rules  to  illustrate  the  consequences  of  the 
Court’s opinion.  The witness in this case testified in an Arizona state 
court,  and  his  testimony  was  therefore  governed  by  the  relevant  state 
rules, which are virtually identical to the Federal Rules.  Of course, the