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.
1963), not error to admit copy of agreement when opponent had original and did not on appeal claim any discrepancy. 1963), not error to admit concededly accurate tape recording made from original wire recording Sauget v.
Check style duplicate meaning trial#
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. This position finds support in the decisions, Myrick v. 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. By definition in Rule 1001(4), supra, a “duplicate” possesses this character. When 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. Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.
0 kommentar(er)
