2010 US Code
Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 28 - APPENDIX
FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates
View MetadataPublication Title | United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 4, Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE |
Category | Bills and Statutes |
Collection | United States Code |
SuDoc Class Number | Y 1.2/5: |
Contained Within | Title 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE TITLE 28 - APPENDIX FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates |
Contains | rule 1003 |
Date | 2010 |
Laws in Effect as of Date | January 7, 2011 |
Positive Law | Yes |
Disposition | standard |
Source Credit | Pub. L. 93-595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1946. |
Statutes at Large Reference | 88 Stat. 1946 |
Public Law Reference | Public Law 93-595 |
Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1946.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed RulesWhen the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court with accuracy and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method which insures accuracy and genuineness. By definition in Rule 1001(4), supra, a “duplicate” possesses this character.
Therefore, if no genuine issue exists as to authenticity and no other reason exists for requiring the original, a duplicate is admissible under the rule. This position finds support in the decisions, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1964), no error in admitting photostatic copies of checks instead of original microfilm in absence of suggestion to trial judge that photostats were incorrect; Johns v. United States, 323 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1963), not error to admit concededly accurate tape recording made from original wire recording; Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1963), not error to admit copy of agreement when opponent had original and did not on appeal claim any discrepancy. Other reasons for requiring the original may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party. United States v. Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964). And see Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 265 F.2d 418, 76 A.L.R.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1959).
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93–650The Committee approved this Rule in the form submitted by the Court, with the expectation that the courts would be liberal in deciding that a “genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original.”
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. The United States Government Printing Office may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the US site. Please check official sources.