Unformatted text preview: ent to support a finding that the exemplars were really written by Magnan. Notes:
Central writings are these phony returns and as exemplars they use two things: Magnan's personal returns (self-authenticated by statute) Magnan's personnel file at his job (this is his personnel file, likely going to be his, good enough 901(b)(4)) TEXAS DIFFERS HERE: 901(b)(3) Exemplar has to be admitted or found by the court to be authentic Don't want the regression, where the jury has to first argue about the genuineness of the specimen before they move on to the main event (otherwise, have to deal with opposing counsel attacking the genuineness of the exemplar!!) Under Federal rules, once the exemplar is brought in/authenticated the opposing counsel is allowed to attack the genuineness of the exemplar...just an extra issue the jury has to deal with! Not allowed in Texas Authentication and Identification: Voice and Telephone Conversations [FRE 901(b) (5), 901(b)(6)]
GENERAL NOTES: FRE 901(b)(5) permits voice identification based upon familiarity acquired "at any tim...
View Full Document