If you are in a situation where you need to prove or disprove the contents of a writing, then it is important that you know the original evidence rule. The original evidence rule is a legal principle that states that the best evidence of a writer’s content is the writing itself. There are exceptions to this rule as well as ways for parties involved in litigation to admit secondary evidence when they can’t produce the original document itself. The following sections will explain these exceptions and methods further.
The original evidence rule is a legal principle
The original evidence rule is a legal principle that states that the best evidence of a writer’s content is the writing itself. It means that when you’re trying to prove what someone has written, or how they meant something, you should look for their actual words. However, there are exceptions: If the document in question has been altered or changed in any way since it was first written down such as through translation or transcription then all copies of it can be considered equally valid as evidence. For example, if you’re investigating whether someone had committed fraud and they later say “I didn’t mean what I said,” but then they sign an affidavit saying “I did mean what I said” after having had time to think about it some more, then the affidavit might be considered more reliable than any other version because it was signed under oath and with witnesses present at the time of signing (or otherwise documented).
There are exceptions to the original evidence rule
The original evidence rule is not absolute. There are exceptions to this rule, which allow for the re-creation of the original either dence in cases involving fraud. Some examples of these exceptions include:
- The plaintiff has lost or destroyed the original evidence
- The defendant has destroyed the original evidence against them
- There is no other way to get to the truth
Best original evidence rule doesn’t a secondary evidence
Secondary evidence is allowed when the original is unavailable, lost, damaged, or destroyed. For example, if you have an old contract that is so worn and torn that it is unreadable, you can use what we call “secondary evidence” to prove what was contained in the document
The same holds true for a lost or destroyed document: If you have no other way of knowing what was contained in it (you can’t get another copy), then you would be allowed to use a secondary source like an invoice or receipt to prove what was contained in the missing document.
When the original evidence rule is unavailable
When the original evidence rule is unavailable, secondary evidence may be admitted by one of four methods. There are four methods of admitting the original evidence rule in lieu of the original:
- Parol evidence rule: If a contract is reduced to writing, it may only be contradicted by an admission, written or oral; anything else would be mere hearsay.
- Best evidence rule: When there is an original record or other “best” evidence, this must always be produced. That means if you’re looking at a birth certificate and you want proof that someone’s age was incorrect on it they were actually born five years earlier than what’s stated you’d need to produce the hospital records from when they were born rather than just relying on secondary documents like school transcripts or driver’s licenses that list their ages as younger than that anyway.
- Missing witness rule: If there is insufficient material available for proper cross-examination under the best evidence rule but there are still some relevant facts within the proponent’s possession (i.e., they were present at an event), then those who witnessed it may testify about what happened in place of any missing parties who might otherwise be able to provide firsthand testimony about events surrounding them (and whose absence prevented them from appearing before court).
- This includes people who know where certain documents are kept but aren’t allowed access because they didn’t sign the confidentiality agreement required by companies such as Google so they can’t confirm whether something exists without violating company policy themselves (which could get them fired).
In order to admit the original evidence rule
In order to admit the original evidence rule, certain requirements must be met:
- The party seeking to introduce the original must have a copy of the document.
- That same party must have a witness who can testify to the authenticity of that copy.
- There must be some proof that they cannot produce the original document (for example, if it is lost or destroyed).
- There must be some reason why they cannot produce said original (for instance, if it’s in someone else’s possession).
The person who is seeking to admit the original evidence rule
The person who is seeking to admit the original evidence rule must make a sufficient showing as to the circumstances involved in its loss or destruction. To invoke the original evidence rule, a proper showing must be made as to why the party cannot produce the original document. The party seeking to admit original evidence must prove that it is unavailable, or that it is required to prove a fact in issue. For example, if you are accused of writing something on your blog and want to use an excerpt from one of my posts as evidence against me, I can object on the grounds that you have not made a sufficient showing as to why I would not have access to any other copies of my own posts which may contain similar content.
A good rule of thumb for whether your claim should be admitted under this provision (or whether it will survive cross-examination) is: If there is any possibility at all that someone else could have written this stuff besides me (and it didn’t come from some kind of public domain source), then we’re going to need more than just your word for it.
Party must prove why they cannot produce the original document
In order to admit the original evidence rule, the party must prove why they cannot produce the original document. The party who wants to admit the original evidence rule must prove that they lost or destroyed the original document. The party also needs to prove that they did not have possession of the original document when the trial began and could not obtain it after.
The best original evidence rule
The best original evidence rule is not an absolute rule and there are exceptions to it. The best original evidence rule is not a strict rule, but a complete bar on secondary evidence, and other types of evidence. The best original evidence rule is not a complete bar on other types of evidence.
The original evidence rule has been a controversial topic for many years, but it is still an important one. This rule states that the trier of fact must view the evidence in its original form in order to make decisions about it. The issue with this rule is that it only applies to some types of evidence but not others. For example, if you have an expert witness who testifies about what happened during a crime, they cannot use video recordings or photographs as evidence because they are not able to see the scene itself through their own eyes. Instead, they must rely on descriptions from witnesses (or defendants) who watched the events unfold live while they were happening! In addition, there are cases where people will go back and forth from testimony given directly from witnesses/victims themselves instead of looking at pictures or videos because those objects don’t provide all details needed to understand what went down inside the courtroom.