Rule 2:706.USE OF LEARNED TREATISES WITH EXPERTS (Rule 2:706(a) derived from Code § 8.01-401.1).

Rule 2:706 lets a recognized treatise speak through an expert witness rather than being excluded as hearsay. In civil cases, subdivision (a) reaches statements in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, once the work has been established as a reliable authority — by testimony or by stipulation. Those statements may not be excluded as hearsay when called to an expert’s attention on cross-examination or relied upon by the expert on direct examination. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence, but the treatise itself may not be received as an exhibit — the jury hears the words but does not take the book into deliberations.

Using a treatise on direct examination carries its own notice requirement. The specific statements to be introduced must be designated as literature ahead of time and provided to opposing parties at least 30 days before trial, unless the court orders otherwise. And once a party has properly designated a statement under the rule, the expert called by that party need not have relied on the statement in forming an opinion in order to read it into evidence on direct — designation and reliability substitute for the expert’s personal reliance in that circumstance.

Criminal cases take a narrower, impeachment-only approach. Subdivision (b) applies once an expert witness acknowledges on cross-examination that a published work is a standard authority in the field; the opposing party may then ask whether the witness agrees or disagrees with statements in that acknowledged work. That proof, unlike the civil-case rule, comes in solely for impeachment purposes bearing on the expert’s credibility — not as substantive evidence of the treatise’s content.