BACK2 FED. R. EVID. Article 104 (b) states: “Where the relevance of the evidence depends on the existence of a fact, sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the fact exists. The court may admit the evidence offered provided that it is presented at a later date.┬áThe primary authentication rule, Rule 901(a), provides that “to satisfy the requirement to legalize or identify evidence, the sponsor must provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the subject matter is what it claims.” The court makes the initial decision under Rule 104(a) if the proponent has presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to decide in favour of authenticity.1 If this is the case, under Rule 104(b)2, the jury makes the final decision as to whether the evidence is actually what its lawyer claims.3 Authentication of messages sent via a social network, is initially the same as authenticating other messages. Because anyone can create a social media identity on behalf of another person, “the fact that an electronic communication on their face claims to be from a particular person`s social networking account is generally not sufficient to authenticate that person as the author of the communication.” 72 Therefore, “there must be a number of sufficient `corroborating circumstances` for a reasonable jury to conclude, on the basis of the evidence, that [the alleged perpetrator] actually wrote the emails.” 73 “As long as the authenticity of the evidence presented was at least `within the area of reasonable disagreement,` the jury has the right to assess the credibility of witnesses and decide who told the truth.” 74 Proof of authorship or receipt is similar to that used for emails and text messages, as well as evidence of social media conversations, as discussed above. Government websites. Rule 902(5) (Official Publications) states that “a book, pamphlet or other publication purporting to have been published by a public authority” is affirmed. Mosley, 672 F.3d 586, 591 (8th Cir. 2012) (PHYSICIANS` DESK REFERENCE); Shuler v. Garrett, 2014 U.S. App.

LEXIS 2772, at *7 (6th Cir. 14 February 2014) (OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY); Dealer Computer Servs. v. Monarch Ford, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11237, at *11 & n.3 (E.D. Cal. 25 Jan. 2013) (Rules of the American Arbitration Association); Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Monaco, 2014 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 149419 (D. Colo. 26 Aug. 2014) (FINRA Rules); Famous Music Corp. v. 716 Elmwood, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96789, at *12-13 n.7 (W.D.N.Y. December 28, 2007) (ASCAP Bylaws).

One. An original letter or recording, i.e. the original has the same effect on the part of the person who exported or displayed it; In particular, for electronic evidence, “original” means any impression – or other visual output – if it faithfully reproduces the information; or A party may wish to present various types of electronic evidence at trial, including emails, text messages and instant messages; digitally stored data; digital photographs; and social media information. Several rules of evidence apply in these scenarios. However, the admission of electronic evidence requires overcoming a number of barriers outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence. 1 See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. 2 Fed. R. Evid.

901. Certain types of evidence do not need to be certified. These are listed in Rule 902 and are considered “self-authenticated,” meaning that evidence “does not require extrinsic proof of authenticity to be admitted.” Some examples include public documents, newspapers and commercial paper. 3 See Fed. R. Evid. 901 (b) (1). 4 Grimm, P.

& Brady, K., Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, p. 2 (2018), available at /Grimm%20Brady%20Evid%20Admiss%20Chart%202018.pdf (with many more examples and for more categories of electronic evidence than those discussed here). 5 Fed. R. Evid. 401-402. 6 id. 7 Fed. R. Evid. 403.

8 See Grimm & Brady, Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, p. 3 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104) (“Before presenting evidence to the jury, [the] judge must determine whether [the] sponsor [of the evidence] has provided a satisfactory basis (predominance of evidence) from which [the] jury could reasonably conclude that the evidence is “relevant”).