TITLE NINE — AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement:
Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.
Non Expert Opinion About Handwriting. A nonexpert’s opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.
Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.
Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.
Opinion About a Voice. An opinion identifying a person’s voice — whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording — based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.
Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law, or that a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.
Evidence About a Process or System. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.
Electronic or Digital Communication. Electronic or digital communication, by confirming circumstances that would allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that this evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. Neither expert testimony nor exclusive access is necessary to authenticate the source.
Capture of a Discord Channel or Direct Message. A screenshot, screen capture, screen recording, or exported log purporting to display a channel, thread, or direct-message conversation, by evidence of the circumstances in which the capture or export was made, together with any of the following:
testimony of a person who participated in, sent, received, or observed the communication that the item fairly and accurately displays it;
testimony of the person who made the capture or export describing how and when it was made and that it has not been altered;
the display within the item of the server or channel, the usernames or display names of the participants, and the times of the messages;
a reload of the client and a display of the account identifier, as Rule 902(4) and Rule 1108(4) provide; or
the distinctive contents of the exchange, including a reply that responds to a communication known to have been sent, matters known only to the purported participants, or a manner of expression characteristic of the purported author.
Roblox Username, Avatar, or Account Identifier. A username, display name, avatar, profile, or account identifier, by evidence connecting it with the person to whom it is attributed, including testimony of a person acquainted with that person’s account, the account’s appearance of record in the case, an in-game record associating the account with the conduct in question, or the distinctive characteristics of the account. A username is the identifier by which a person is known in the courts of this State, and evidence that a person acted under a username is not made insufficient by the absence of evidence of that person’s name outside the platform.
In-Game Record, Log, or System Message. A record, log, entry, or system message generated or maintained by an in-game system of the State or of an agency of the State — including an arrest record, a warrant entry, a citation, a licence, an employment record, a transaction record, and an inventory record — by evidence describing the system and showing that it produces an accurate result, together with testimony of a person familiar with the system that the item is a record of that system. Neither the officer who caused the entry to be made nor the operator of the system need testify.
Dispatch or Radio Transmission. A law-enforcement dispatch or radio transmission, or a recording or log of one, by testimony of a person who transmitted, received, or monitored the transmission, or by evidence that the item is a record of the dispatch channel maintained in the ordinary course of law-enforcement operations. A transmission clearing a search warrant by the command prescribed in Rid. R. Crim. P. 44(11) is authenticated by evidence that it appeared in the dispatch channel.
Document Produced by the Electronic Filing System. A document produced by the court’s electronic filing system, by its own appearance. Such a document bears the case number assigned by the system, the Bates number assigned to the filing of which it is part, and the account of record by which the filing was transmitted, and those identifiers are sufficient to support a finding that the document is what it purports to be. This paragraph does not extend to the contents of a document merely because that document was filed.
Comparison with the Underlying Record. A comparison of an offered item with the log, record, file, or system entry from which it was drawn, made by a witness or by the court.
Metadata and System-Generated Identifiers. Timestamps, message identifiers, account identifiers, case numbers, Bates numbers, file names, and other data generated by a system rather than by a person, together with evidence describing the system.
Standard; Function of the Court and of the Fact Finder. Authentication is a preliminary question governed by Rule 104(2). The court shall admit the item upon a showing sufficient to support a finding that the item is what its proponent claims. The court does not decide whether the item is genuine. The opponent may contest genuineness before the fact finder, and the weight to be given the item is for the fact finder.
Conditional Admission. Where the foundation for an item is not complete when it is offered, the court may admit the item de bene upon the condition that the foundation be supplied later, as Rule 104(2) provides. Evidence so admitted is subject to a motion to strike if the foundation is not forthcoming.
Expert Testimony and Exclusive Access Not Required. No item is required to be authenticated by expert testimony. No proponent of an electronic, digital, or in-game item is required to prove that the person to whom it is attributed had exclusive access to the account, device, channel, or system from which it came. Evidence that another person had access to the account, device, channel, or system goes to weight and does not defeat authentication.
Authentication by Stipulation, Admission, or Concession. An item is authenticated without further showing where:
the parties stipulate to its authenticity, in the proceeding communications or by a paper filed through the electronic filing system;
a party has admitted its genuineness in response to a request for admission under Rid. R. Civ. P. 26.1, or has failed to answer such a request within the time allowed;
the party against whom it is offered produced it in discovery as its own record; or
it is a paper filed by the party against whom it is offered in the same action.
Objection to Authenticity; Time. An objection that an item has not been authenticated shall be made when the item is offered, or upon the failure of a condition imposed under Rule 901(4), and shall state the respect in which the foundation is claimed to be deficient. A general objection that an item is “not authenticated” preserves nothing. Where a party has been afforded a fair opportunity before trial to examine an item and to state an objection to its authenticity and has not done so, the court may treat the objection as waived, except upon a showing of good cause.
Evidence of Alteration. Evidence that an item has been altered, edited, cropped, trimmed, composited, or annotated does not by itself defeat authentication, and is for the fact finder, unless the court finds that the alteration is such that the item no longer fairly represents what its proponent claims. A party offering an item that has been altered is subject to the duty of disclosure imposed by Rule 1108(6).
Relation to Other Rules. This rule states the general requirement of authentication. Rule 902 states the classes of evidence for which extrinsic evidence of authenticity is not required. Rule 1108 states the foundation required for electronic, recorded, and in-game evidence and the manner in which it is offered. Rule 1109 governs the custody of an item between its seizure or capture and its offer. Authentication does not establish relevance, satisfy the rule against hearsay, or dispense with any other rule of admissibility.