(a) IN GENERAL. The admissibility of evidence and the competency and privileges of witnesses are governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts in the light of reason and experience, except when a statute or these rules otherwise provide.
Rule 43.Evidence
Group VI: Trials · Last amended 2022 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 43 sets the baseline rules for trial evidence and witnesses in D.C. Superior Court, requiring testimony in open court absent good cause for remote transmission, incorporating the federal evidence rules on witness examination and evidentiary rulings, and allowing the court to decide motions on affidavits or oral testimony.
Full Text of Rule 43
(b) IN OPEN COURT. At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open court unless otherwise provided by these rules. For good cause and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.
(c) MODE AND ORDER OF EXAMINING WITNESSES AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE. Federal Rule of Evidence 611 is incorporated herein.
(d) RULINGS ON EVIDENCE. Federal Rule of Evidence 103 is incorporated herein.
(e) AFFIRMATION INSTEAD OF AN OATH. When these rules require an oath, a solemn affirmation suffices.
(f) EVIDENCE ON A MOTION. When a motion relies on facts outside the record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or may hear it wholly or partly on oral testimony or on depositions.
Comments
2022 Amendments:
Rule 43(b) is amended to facilitate remote testimony in jury and bench trials. Rule 43(b) retains the “good cause” standard in Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a), but it eliminates the requirement that a party seeking to present live testimony from a remote location establish “compelling circumstances.” According to the advisory committee notes on the 1996 amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a) that included the “compelling circumstances” requirement, depositions taken before trial are superior to remote live testimony, but extensive experience in the District of Columbia during the COVID-19 pandemic has disproved this assumption. Advances in videoconferencing technology make such testimony significantly more like live, in-court testimony than it may have been in 1996. Videoconferencing therefore may be a reasonable means to secure the testimony of a witness who cannot testify in person without undue inconvenience or to resolve difficulties in scheduling a trial in which all witnesses can participate.
Factors that may be relevant to whether good cause exists to allow contemporaneous remote testimony include, but are not limited to: (1) any agreement of the parties; (2) the age, infirmity, or illness of the witness; (3) the convenience of the proposed witness and the parties; (4) the willingness of the witness to testify in person; (5) the cost of producing the witness in person in relation to the importance of the testimony; and (6) any unfair prejudice or surprise to another party.
Videoconferencing is strongly preferred over audio-only transmission, although the latter may be sufficient in some cases, and the court may require videoconferencing as an appropriate safeguard. Other examples of appropriate safeguards include, but are not limited to: (1) prohibiting anyone from being physically present with the witness, or requiring the identification of any such person; (2) prohibiting the witness from consulting notes or other documents, or requiring disclosure of any such documents; (3) prohibiting electronic or other communications with the witness during the testimony; (4) establishing procedures for showing documents or exhibits to the witness during direct and cross examination; (5) establishing procedures to ensure that the witness’s testimony can be seen and/or heard; (6) establishing requirements to ensure that the witness’s surroundings or backdrop does not cause unfair prejudice; and (7) requiring the witness and the parties to test arrangements before the witness testifies.
2017 Amendments:
Rule 43 differs substantially from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43, as amended in 2007, and from the prior rule. Section (a) is taken from Criminal Rule 26. Sections (c) and (d) incorporate by reference Federal Rules of Evidence 611 and 103, respectively. Sections (b), (e), and (f) are substantially identical to sections (a), (b), and (c) of the federal rule. The section regarding interpreters has been deleted. The subject of interpreters is addressed in statutes, administrative orders, and Department of Justice guidance.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 43(a) anchors evidence law in the common law as courts interpret it in light of reason and experience, except where a statute or the civil rules themselves say otherwise. That open-ended standard sits alongside two more specific incorporations: Rule 43(c) pulls in Federal Rule of Evidence 611 to govern how witnesses are examined and how evidence is presented at trial, and Rule 43(d) pulls in Federal Rule of Evidence 103 to govern how the court rules on evidentiary objections. Rather than restate those bodies of law, the rule adopts them by reference.
Rule 43(b) sets the default that trial testimony happens in open court, but it lets the court permit contemporaneous remote transmission for good cause and with appropriate safeguards. That flexibility matters most when a witness cannot appear in person without real inconvenience, or when scheduling everyone for the same courtroom on the same day proves impossible — the rule leaves the specifics of what counts as good cause, and what safeguards fit a given case, to the trial court's judgment rather than spelling out a fixed checklist.
Two smaller provisions round out the rule. Rule 43(e) allows a solemn affirmation to substitute for an oath wherever these rules call for one, accommodating witnesses who object to swearing an oath on religious or personal grounds. And Rule 43(f) tells the court how to handle a motion that depends on facts outside the existing record: it may hear the matter on affidavits, or hear it wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions, giving the court room to build whatever factual record the motion needs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does trial testimony have to happen in the courtroom in person?
That is the default under Rule 43(b), but the court may permit testimony by contemporaneous transmission from another location for good cause and with appropriate safeguards, rather than requiring every witness to appear physically in the courtroom.
What law governs whether a piece of evidence is admissible?
Rule 43(a) points to the common law as courts interpret it in light of reason and experience, except where a statute or the civil rules provide a different rule. Rules 43(c) and (d) then incorporate the Federal Rules of Evidence governing witness examination and evidentiary rulings specifically.
Can I affirm rather than swear an oath as a witness?
Yes. Rule 43(e) allows a solemn affirmation to serve in place of an oath anywhere the rules require one.
If a motion depends on facts that are not already in the case record, how does the court decide it?
Rule 43(f) gives the court discretion to hear the matter on affidavits, or wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions, rather than requiring a full evidentiary hearing every time.
Do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply directly in D.C. Superior Court?
Not wholesale, but Rule 43 incorporates specific federal evidence rules by reference — Federal Rule of Evidence 611 on the mode and order of presenting evidence, and Federal Rule of Evidence 103 on rulings on evidence — while other evidentiary questions are governed by the common law under Rule 43(a).
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: remote witness testimony dc superior courtaffirmation instead of oath dc rule 43evidentiary hearing on motion dcfederal rule of evidence 611 incorporated dcgood cause remote trial testimony