Rule 615 Excluding Witnesses

This rule tracks F.R.E. 615 except that “may” was substituted for “must” in the first line. It was believed that the court should be given latitude as to whether witnesses should be sequestered. It was recognized that in most cases a request for sequestration will be granted but that it is sometimes desirable not to sequester a particular witness, especially an expert witness. F.R.E. 615(d) has not been included in D.R.E. 615. For prior cases illustrating the areas of law covered by this rule, see Fountain v. State, Del. Supr., 382 A.2d 230 (1977); Derrickson v. State, Del. Supr., 321 A.2d 497 (1974). D.R.E. 615 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only. The pre-2017 “Comment” to D.R.E. 615 was revised only as necessary to reflect the current language of F.R.E. 615. There is no intent to change any result in ruling on evidence admissibility.