Opinion ID: 578193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Documents from Evidence

Text: 32 At trial and outside the jury's presence, counsel for Haddock proffered photocopies of six documents as evidence supporting Haddock's defense. The district court denied admission of these photocopies into evidence on the basis that they did not have enough indication of reliability at this time that the court felt that [it] could allow them under the Rules of Evidence. In a memorandum reexamining that order, the court concluded that the government had raised a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the originals. Defendant contends that these documents were admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that the exclusion of these documents violated his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment right to present evidence in his defense. The trial court is afforded broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings, and we reverse only upon a showing of abuse of that discretion. United States v. Alexander, 849 F.2d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir.1988). 33 Under Rule 1001(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, photocopies are considered duplicates. Rule 1003 provides that [a] duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Fed.R.Evid. 1003. Rule 1003 is part of a broadened set of evidentiary rules that reflect the fact that, due to modern and accurate reproduction techniques, duplicates and originals should normally be treated interchangeably. However, despite our age of technology, a trial court must still be wary of admitting duplicates where the circumstances surrounding the execution of the writing present a substantial possibility of fraud. 5 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence p 1003, at 1003-9 (1991). 34 With regard to each of these photocopies, evidence presented at trial indicates that only Haddock could recall ever seeing either the original or a copy of these documents. Except for Haddock, no oneincluding in some cases persons who allegedly typed the document and persons to whom the original allegedly was sent--was familiar with the contents of the photocopies. In addition, witnesses testified that several of the documents bore markings and included statements that did not comport with similar documents prepared in the ordinary course of business at the Bank of White City and at the Bank of Herington. Under these circumstances, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding these photocopied documents from evidence.