Which statement is true about the need to demonstrate authenticity for Case File exhibits?

Which statement is true about the need to demonstrate authenticity for Case File exhibits?

• A. It is always necessary to demonstrate authenticity.
• B. It is never necessary to demonstrate authenticity.
• C. It is not necessary to demonstrate authenticity because the case-file exhibits are admitted by stipulation.
• D. Authenticity must be demonstrated by a separate motion.

Answer: (C)

Authentication can be satisfied by a stipulation. When the parties agree that case-file exhibits are authentic, the court accepts them on that agreement without requiring separate proof of authenticity. This reflects the practical rule that a stipulation by the parties to authenticity substitutes for live authentication evidence, streamlining the process. So, the statement that case-file exhibits are admitted by stipulation and thus do not require a separate authentication effort is the correct one. It isn’t that authenticity is always required or never required—absent a stipulation, authentication would still be necessary. It also isn’t required that authenticity be shown through a separate motion if the exhibits are admitted by stipulation.

Authentication can be satisfied by a stipulation. When the parties agree that case-file exhibits are authentic, the court accepts them on that agreement without requiring separate proof of authenticity. This reflects the practical rule that a stipulation by the parties to authenticity substitutes for live authentication evidence, streamlining the process.

So, the statement that case-file exhibits are admitted by stipulation and thus do not require a separate authentication effort is the correct one. It isn’t that authenticity is always required or never required—absent a stipulation, authentication would still be necessary. It also isn’t required that authenticity be shown through a separate motion if the exhibits are admitted by stipulation.