Evidence2 Quiz6

To authenticate (or lay the foundation) a piece of evidence, the prosecutor could call the police officer who found the glove to testify that he recognizes the glove in the courtroom as the same glove that he found at the crime scene.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

direct testimony and chain of custody, are based on Rule 901(b)(1). This rule provides that the authentication requirement may be satisfied by a witness with knowledge that the item is what the proponent claims it is. The direct testimony method simply requires the witness to testify that, based on his or her knowledge, the item genuinely is what the proponent claims it is.

However, the direct testimony method is not always sufficient for authentication. In our example, the prosecutor would also have to use the chain of custody method. This method takes a different approach, requiring one or more witnesses to testify that the item has been in their custody since it was found.

In order to authenticate the evidence, the prosecutor could call several witnesses to establish a ​ (a)   from the time the glove was found up until its current presence in the courtroom. So, the police officer who first discovered the glove could ​ (b)   that he found the glove lying on the ground beside the victim’s body. Then, the crime scene investigator could testify that she tagged the glove and brought it back to the ​ (c)   at the police station. Finally, the police officer who brought the glove to the courtroom could testify that the glove had not been removed from the evidence room until he brought the glove to the​ (d)   for the present trial.

• chain of custody
• testify
• evidence room
• courtroom

Answer explanation

chain of custody, are based on Rule 901(b)(1)

Courts have found that a missing link in the chain of custody does not automatically make an item inauthentic; however, additional evidence will likely be needed for authentication.

if the crime scene investigator is unavailable to testify to her link in the chain of custody, then some other evidence of her custody of the glove should be offered, such as her signature on the evidence room log.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

901(b)(1)

The third method of ​ (a)   , expert comparison, is based on Rule 901(b)(3). This rule provides that the authentication requirement may be satisfied by an ​ (b)   who ​ (c)   the offered item to another item that has already been ​ (d)   . The expert comparison method requires the expert to ​ (e)   to his or her opinion that the items are identical in the way that they’re claimed to be.

• authentication
• expert witness
• compares
• authenticated
• testify

a party offers a letter claimed to be written by Bob. In order to authenticate the letter, an expert witness could compare the offered letter to another letter that has already been authenticated as written by Bob. How would the expert witness authenticate the writing?

• compare the handwriting

• compare the language patterns

• the expert would have to testify about the writings

Rule 901(b)(4) provides that the ​ (a)   requirement may be satisfied by an item’s distinctive characteristics, such as its appearance, contents, substance, and internal patterns, considered in light of the ​ (b)   surrounding the item. The distinctive characteristics method requires a witness to ​ (c)   that, based on the item’s distinctive characteristics, the item ​ (d)   is what the proponent claims it is

• authentication
• circumstances
• testify
• genuinely

How can a letter written by Bob be authenticated?

• Bob’s mother could testify that the contents of the letter are distinctive because they contain information that only Bob would know

• the court could then authenticate the letter as written by Bob, based on the distinctive contents of the letter

• the court could authenticate the letter as written by Bob, based on the relevant circumstances surrounding the letter

Rule 901(b)(2) specifies that a ​ (a)   witness without direct knowledge may also ​ (b)   that handwriting is ​ (c)   . However, the non-expert witness’s opinion must be based on a ​ (d)   with the handwriting that was not acquired for the current ​ (e)   .

• non-expert
• testify
• genuine
• familiarity
• litigation

If the prosecutor offers a check claimed to be written by Bob, then Bob’s friend could testify that she recognizes his handwriting, even if she didn’t personally observe him writing the check. However,

• Yes, b/c Bob’s friend would need to be familiar with Bob’s handwriting outside of the current litigation.

• No, b/c Bob's friend did not see Bob write the check

• Yes, b/c Bob's friend noticed his handwriting one time

• No, b/c Bob's friend must be an expert

Answer explanation

Rule 901(b)(2) specifies that a non-expert witness without direct knowledge may also testify that handwriting is genuine. However, the non-expert witness’s opinion must be based on a familiarity with the handwriting that was not acquired for the current litigation.

Rule 901(b)(5) provides a specific method for ​ (a)   voices. This rule specifies that a ​ (b)   may identify a person’s voice based on ​ (c)   the voice at any prior time, under ​ (d)   connecting the voice with the alleged ​ (e)  

• authenticating
• witness
• hearing
• circumstances
• speaker