Orrin Hatch: “I want to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his fine statement and for his support of this…”

“I want to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his fine statement and for his support of this amendment on this floor. I think many people in this country are grateful for his leadership in this matter. Let me spend a few seconds on some of the comments made by one of my dear friends, Senator Heflin, when he was here. He made reference to what evidence may be inadmissible in the compensatory damages phase of the trial. It must be emphasized that the evidentiary restrictions on the Dole-Exon-Hatch amendment are based on State law. The relevant language is section 107(d)(1). Evidence relevant only to the claim of punitive damages, as determined by applicable State law, shall be admissible to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded. Whether particular evidence is admissible or inadmissible, therefore, depends on the facts of the case and the law of the State in which the action is brought. Moreover, if evidence is relevant only to punitive damages, there is no reason to object to excluding it in the compensatory damages case, and indeed such exclusion accords with the traditional rule . . . that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. I must mention that bifurcated proceedings in punitive damages cases are required or permitted under current law in almost all jurisdictions that permit claims for punitive damages. Let me turn to the Dole-Exon-Hatch amendment. Naturally, I support this amendment.”