Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

4 collateral matters the writing recording or

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: contents when original is not available FRE 1004] Facts/Procedural Posture: Neville testified regarding contents of a brochure describing the characteristics of Coro-foam insulation, b/c a fire had destroyed the brochure supplied by appellant. Appellant contends that Neville's testimony was not the best evidence to prove the contents of Cook's brochure should have used a brochure similar to the one destroyed in the fire, should have introduced that brochure as a duplicate. Holding: Federal Rules of Evidence recognizes no degrees of secondary evidence to prove the contents of a writing that has been lost of destroyed; therefore the court properly admitted the testimony of Neville as secondary evidence of the contents of the brochure destroyed in the fire. Notes: Once it is determined that the original is not available as proscribed by Rule 1004, there is no hierarchy of secondary evidence that must be used to prove the contents..doesn't have to be the duplicate...can use whatever method you want (oral testimony etc.) UNITED STATE...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online