Evidence Authenticity Forum

[hous]

Is this accurate?

There must be a showing of that every piece of evidence is authentic in order for it to be admitted into evidence. If the judge finds prima facie evidence to support the jury’s finding that it is authentic, it is admissible. Once the judge admits evidence, that ruling may not be challenged. However, a party may submit evidence that challenges the authenticity of the evidence.

[North]

Is this accurate?

There must be a showing of that every piece of evidence is authentic in order for it to be admitted into evidence. If the judge finds prima facie evidence to support the jury’s finding that it is authentic, it is admissible. Once the judge admits evidence, that ruling may not be challenged. However, a party may submit evidence that challenges the authenticity of the evidence.

Eh.

You only have to convince the judge that the evidence is authentic if the opposing party objects to its authenticity.

If they have, the judge reviews the authenticity under the 104(b) standard of review, whereby he determines whether, upon consideration of admissible evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the introduced evidence is indeed authentic. Authenticity is a condition precedent to relevance.

ETA: I misread prima facie in the OP, so yeah I guess we're saying the same thing.

Maybe let's have just one thread for evidence stuff?

[Ded Precedent]

Maybe let's have just one thread for evidence stuff?

I agree we should have one evidence megathread to pose questions/hypotheticals for practice. I mean you don't have to but I like your questions and it would just make things easier to navigate/find.

[hous]

Is this accurate?

There must be a showing of that every piece of evidence is authentic in order for it to be admitted into evidence. If the judge finds prima facie evidence to support the jury’s finding that it is authentic, it is admissible. Once the judge admits evidence, that ruling may not be challenged. However, a party may submit evidence that challenges the authenticity of the evidence.

Eh.

You only have to convince the judge that the evidence is authentic if the opposing party objects to its authenticity.

If they have, the judge reviews the authenticity under the 104(b) standard of review, whereby he determines whether, upon consideration of admissible evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the introduced evidence is indeed authentic. Authenticity is a condition precedent to relevance.

ETA: I misread prima facie in the OP, so yeah I guess we're saying the same thing.

Maybe let's have just one thread for evidence stuff?

This is good, I didn't realize authenticity had to be objected to before the judge will do a preliminary ruling on authenticity. Once the judge finds its admissible from its preliminary ruling, the opposing side can not challenge the admissibility but they can submit other evidence that shows its not authentic.

Also, why isn't relevance a condition precedent to authenticity? Surely the evidence must be relevant before the judge will even consider authenticity, no?

[North]

Also, why isn't relevance a condition precedent to authenticity? Surely the evidence must be relevant before the judge will even consider authenticity, no?

Cart before the horse. Whether it's relevant is conditioned on it's being an authentic piece of evidence. Something fake isn't relevant to anything. That's why it's 104(b) review.

[hous]

Also, why isn't relevance a condition precedent to authenticity? Surely the evidence must be relevant before the judge will even consider authenticity, no?

Cart before the horse. Whether it's relevant is conditioned on it's being an authentic piece of evidence. Something fake isn't relevant to anything. That's why it's 104(b) review.

Excellent, thank you.

[nygrrrl]

Hous do you want to start a new thread or do you want me to merge the 2 (it is just 2, right?) that you have? On my way to the library - PM me.

[hous]

Might as well merge it so people can review everything we covered.