How is real evidence authenticated

The rule of authentication must be applied in conjunction with the other rules of evidence to ensure that the judge will allow the evidence to be presented to the jury. There is nothing more devastating to a case than a court's exclusion of valuable written evidence on the grounds that the attorney has failed to properly authenticate the evidence. What is Authentication? February 24, Recent News August 2, July 8, November 10, November 9, November 5, October 22, October 8, The process of linking a piece of evidence to a case—of authenticating or identifying the evidence—is frequently referred to as laying a foundation.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a foundation is sufficient if a reasonable juror would find it more probably true than not true that the evidence is what the party offering it claims it to be.

The most basic way to lay an evidentiary foundation is to demonstrate that a witness has personal knowledge. For example, the witness may testify that he wrote the letter, or that he saw the plaintiff sign the contract, or that he found the bullet in the kitchen. Thus a document or telephone conversation may be shown to have emanated from a particular person by virtue of its disclosing knowledge of facts known peculiarly to him; Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co.

Braniff , 89 Okl. Language patterns may indicate authenticity or its opposite. Magnuson v. State , Wis. Example 5. Since aural voice identification is not a subject of expert testimony, the requisite familiarity may be acquired either before or after the particular speaking which is the subject of the identification, in this respect resembling visual identification of a person rather than identification of handwriting. Example 2 , supra, People v. Nichols , Ill. State , Md. McGee , Mo.

Example 6. The cases are in agreement that a mere assertion of his identity by a person talking on the telephone is not sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the conversation and that additional evidence of his identity is required. The additional evidence need not fall in any set pattern. Thus the content of his statements or the reply technique, under Example 4 , supra , or voice identification under Example 5 , may furnish the necessary foundation.

Outgoing calls made by the witness involve additional factors bearing upon authenticity. The calling of a number assigned by the telephone company reasonably supports the assumption that the listing is correct and that the number is the one reached. If the number is that of a place of business, the mass of authority allows an ensuing conversation if it relates to business reasonably transacted over the telephone, on the theory that the maintenance of the telephone connection is an invitation to do business without further identification.

Matton v. Hoover Co. Crutchfield , Okl. Baum , Va. Otherwise, some additional circumstance of identification of the speaker is required. The authorities divide on the question whether the self-identifying statement of the person answering suffices. Example 6 answers in the affirmative on the assumption that usual conduct respecting telephone calls furnish adequate assurances of regularity, bearing in mind that the entire matter is open to exploration before the trier of fact.

Example 7. Public records are regularly authenticated by proof of custody, without more. The example extends the principle to include data stored in computers and similar methods, of which increasing use in the public records area may be expected.

Example 8. The familiar ancient document rule of the common law is extended to include data stored electronically or by other similar means. Since the importance of appearance diminishes in this situation, the importance of custody or place where found increases correspondingly. This expansion is necessary in view of the widespread use of methods of storing data in forms other than conventional written records. Any time period selected is bound to be arbitrary. The common law period of 30 years is here reduced to 20 years, with some shift of emphasis from the probable unavailability of witnesses to the unlikeliness of a still viable fraud after the lapse of time.

See also the numerous statutes prescribing periods of less than 30 years in the case of recorded documents. The application of Example 8 is not subject to any limitation to title documents or to any requirement that possession, in the case of a title document, has been consistent with the document.

Example 9.