It is unfortunate that the leadership of the Federal Rules of Evidence Advisory Committee sees imperfect rules and says "That's good enough." It is disheartening to know that inconsistent, confusing and inadequate evidence rules must continue to be taught to law students because the Committee is willing to settle for comfortable mediocrity.

An accomplished academic like Professor Capra, the Committee's reporter, should expect more. He insists, however, that "a new and elegant code of evidence with a perfect structure, one that would be ever so much easier to teach" would cost far too much. Too much in terms of what? The Committee members' time? Ill-advised rules? Surely the Committee's collective wisdom can minimize the latter.

We are at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the evidence code and approaching a new millennium. Many rules within that code have been in need of attention for decades. If not now, when?

Revisions that are proposed by the Advisory Committee are designed simply to make the existing code work. These changes will only marginally make the code better. The Advisory Committee cannot be allowed to hide behind its unsubstantiated fear that any significant revision will create more problems than it resolves. That attitude would have resulted in the evidence code never having been adopted.

Professor Capra scoffs at the idea of revisions that are designed to "satisfy a law professor's vision of a dream code of evidence." Why? I would prefer someone at the helm of the Committee who is pursuing a dream and a vision for the future to someone who hides from shadows of the past and the potential problems of the future.