Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!husc6!spdcc!fnord
From: fnord@spdcc.COM (Dan Schaeffer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Evidence (was Re: Musing on Constitutionality)
Message-ID: <3998@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
Date: 12 Sep 90 19:01:46 GMT
References: <11621@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <36981@ut-emx>
Reply-To: fnord@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Dan Schaeffer)
Organization: The Friends of Kafka Project
Lines: 23

Let's keep in mind also the purpose of the "Best Evidence Rule," a
concept which manages to elude a fairly steady stream of lawyers and
judges, despite its simplicity.

The Best Evidence Rule, as codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, says
the following:
"To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original
 writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise
 provided in these rules or by Act of Congress."

What does this mean?  The key phrase is "[t]o prove the content".  All it
says is that a witness can't just get up on the stand and say, "Yes, the
document in issue says X."  If you want to prove that the document says
X, you have to have the document.  Whether it can be a duplicate or must
be an original is dependent on factors noted in other rules.

There are some exceptions to this Best Evidence Rule, such as for expert
witnesses, but essentially, that's it: you can't say what a document
contains; you have to produce the document itself.

D. J. Schaeffer
"Loewenstein, Loewenstein." 
[fnord@ursa-major.spdcc.com]