⚡ 10-Second Rule
Before the jury sees a letter, photo, or recording, someone must give enough proof it's genuine.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Leo brings a baseball card to the trading table. "It's signed by a famous shortstop," he says. His friends won't trade for a bare claim. So Leo shows proof: his dad watched the signing, and the autograph matches the shortstop's poster signature. Nobody demands absolute certainty. The table rule is gentler — just enough proof that a reasonable kid could believe it. After that, each trader decides for herself how much to trust the card. And some cards prove themselves, like one sealed in the company's official stamped case.
⚖️ Actual Rule
FRE 901(a) sets the standard: "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." FRE 901(b) gives nonexclusive illustrations: testimony of a witness with knowledge; a nonexpert's opinion on handwriting based on familiarity not acquired for the current litigation; comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact; distinctive characteristics taken together with the circumstances; identification of a voice based on hearing it at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker; and, for telephone conversations, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned to a person or business, plus circumstances such as self-identification or a conversation about business reasonably transacted over the phone. FRE 902 makes certain items self-authenticating — requiring no extrinsic evidence — including sealed or certified public documents, certified copies of public records, newspapers and periodicals, trade inscriptions, notarized documents, commercial paper, certified records of a regularly conducted activity (FRE 902(11)-(12)), and certified electronic records and data (FRE 902(13)-(14)). A photograph is authenticated by any witness familiar with the scene who testifies that it fairly and accurately depicts it; the photographer need not testify.
ELI-10 translation: bring just enough proof that a reasonable juror could believe the item's label — and some official items vouch for themselves.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- What does the offering party claim the item is? (First read the label the lawyer is putting on the thing.)
- Is there evidence sufficient to support a finding that it's genuine? The bar is low. (Enough proof that a sensible person could believe it — not certainty.)
- Is the item self-authenticating under FRE 902 — certified public records, newspapers, trade labels, certified business or electronic records? (Some items carry their own ID card and need no witness.)
- Handwriting: expert or jury comparison works, but a lay opinion needs familiarity not gained for the lawsuit. (A friend who already knew the writing can vouch — not someone who studied it just for court.)
- Voice: anyone familiar with the voice may identify it, even if the familiarity came later. (Voice-knowing can be learned any time, even after the fight started.)
- Phone calls: dialing a person's or business's listed number, plus telling circumstances, authenticates; an incoming caller's bare self-identification does not. (Dialing a known number counts; a stranger phoning in and naming himself doesn't.)
- Photographs: any witness who knows the scene may say the picture is fair and accurate. (The picture-taker can stay home; anyone who knows the place will do.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners authenticate an incoming call with nothing but the caller's self-identification — insufficient by itself — while an outgoing call dialed to a listed number, joined with a business conversation, suffices under FRE 901(b)(6). The mirror-image trap swaps the familiarity rules: a lay witness may not authenticate handwriting from familiarity acquired for the litigation, but a voice may be identified from familiarity acquired at any time, even after litigation began.
ELI-10: A stranger phoning in and announcing a name proves nothing. Dialing the known number yourself is different. Handwriting vouchers must be old friends of the writing; voice vouchers can be new ones.
🧪 Question
In a federal diversity action for breach of contract, a homeowner testified that she dialed the telephone number listed on the website of Granite Supply, a countertop wholesaler; that a man answered, "Granite Supply"; and that the man agreed to deliver forty slabs of granite at the quoted price by June 1. The homeowner admitted she did not recognize the man's voice and that he never gave his name. Granite Supply objects that the conversation has not been authenticated because the speaker's identity was never established.
Should the court admit the testimony about the call?
(A) No, because the homeowner could not identify the answering speaker's voice. (B) No, unless the person answering identified himself by name and position. (C) Yes, because self-identification by a person answering a telephone always authenticates the call. (D) Yes, because the homeowner dialed the number the business listed and the conversation concerned business reasonably transacted over the phone.
Answer: (D). Under FRE 901(b)(6), an outgoing call to a number assigned to a business, plus a conversation relating to business reasonably transacted over the phone, is sufficient to support a finding that the homeowner spoke with Granite Supply.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) demands voice recognition, which is one route to authentication but not a requirement when the outgoing-call method applies.
- (B) invents a name-and-title requirement; the listed-number-plus-business-talk showing is enough on its own.
- (C) overshoots — bare self-identification, especially by an incoming caller, does not by itself authenticate a call.
- ELI-10: The misconception is thinking every call needs a recognized voice or a stated name. Dialing the store's own number and talking store business is proof enough.
