RULES PROVIDING FOR THE ADMISSION OR EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL ARE BASED ON PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE, A MISTRUST OF JURY ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VALID AND INVALID EVIDENCE, AND THE NEED TO PROMULGATE UNIFORM VALUES IN COURT DECISIONMAKING. CONFLICTS ARISING FROM THE ADOPTION OF RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE (1) FORMAL DECISIONMAKING (STRUCTURED DECISIONMAKING WHICH HAS FIXED AND PREDICTABLE PARAMETERS FOR DECISIONS) VERSUS NONFORMAL DECISIONMAKING (WHICH ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF DECISIONMAKING PARAMETERS ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH CASE); AND (2) FAITH IN JURIES (A TRUST THAT JURIES CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VALID AND INVALID BASES FOR VERDICTS) VERSUS MISTRUST OF JURIES (THE BELIEF THAT JURIES ARE NOT COMPETENT TO RENDER JUST DECISIONS WITHOUT THE COURT'S SCREENING THE INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE JURY'S VERDICT). THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO RESOLVE THESE CONFLICTS. THE PRIMARY ADVANCES OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE ELIMINATION OF DECISIONS BASED ON SEMANTICS, SYSTEMATIC ADHERENCE TO SEVERAL CLEARLY DEFINED RATIONALES DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE, AND RECOGNITION OF AN ACCOMODATION TO ADVANCES IN SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, AND SOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE. THE PROPOSED WASHINGTON RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL RULES TO PROMOTE THE UNDERLYING BASES FOR ESTABLISHING RULES OF EVIDENCE AND TO RESOLVE THE AFOREMENTIONED CONFLICTS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)