![]() ![]() ![]() The fact conflicting inferences can be drawn regarding authenticity goes to the document’s weight as evidence, not its admissibility.” ( Jazayeri v. George (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 258, 262.) In other words, “s long as the evidence would support a finding of authenticity, the writing is admissible. Code, § 403(c).), the issue of the authenticity of the document actually becomes a question of fact for the jury to decide. While the judge decides whether a party has satisfied their burden, (Evid. Code, § 1400.) In that way, “he statutory definition ties authentication to relevance.” ( People v. Code, § 403(a).) You have the burden to introduce evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the writing is what you claim it to be. If opposing counsel does object to a writing’s authenticity, the burden of authentication is on you − the proponent of the writing. Authentication may also be achieved by judicial notice or a custodian’s affidavit in the case of a nonparty’s business records. ![]() Code, § 353(a).) Authentication is similarly unnecessary if opposing counsel stipulates or admits to the writing’s authenticity. Code, § 1401(a).) There is no need to authenticate a writing unless opposing counsel objects to its foundation or authenticity. Code, § 352) and not subject to any exclusionary rule (i.e., hearsay) in order to be admitted. Most basically, evidence must be relevant (Evid. Code, § 250.) Electronic evidence can also include voicemails, database materials, and computer metadata. Code, § 250.) Over time the definition expanded to include photocopies of those more traditional documents, as well as printouts of emails and Web pages, photographs, videos, and almost any other form of communication or representation. Traditionally, a “writing” included handwritten and typed documents. Before you assume a jury will see the evidence, you need a plan for laying a foundation.Īs the manner by which information is recorded has changed over the years, the law in California has evolved and expanded in an attempt to keep up with the times. Applying the traditional rules of evidence to new media can be tricky. Emails, texts, tweets, status updates, posts and metadata provide potential treasure troves of information, but is it admissible? The evolution of electronic evidence easily outpaces the Legislature’s ability to promulgate rules of evidence to address it. The proliferation of computers, digital media, and social media is constantly creating new types of evidence available for use at trial. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |