The authentication rule requires that evidence submitted to the trier of fact sufficient. This article demonstrates how the authentication rule serves as a barrier to determining the relevancy and authenticity of documents relating to the facts in issue. The authentication rule often restricts the admissibility of evidence. At times the rule is superfluous because the same evidence that authenticates the writing is also enough evidence to prove the ultimate fact at issue. At other times the rule distorts the force of a parties’ case because the same evidence that is enough to prove the ultimate fact at issue is not always enough to authenticate the writing, which weakens the parties’ case. Superfluous and distorting effects of the authentication rule demonstrate that the rule itself is a barrier to authentication. For this reason, the authors conclude that the rule should be abolished.
Lawrence A. Alexander & Elaine A. Alexander,
The Authentication of Documents Requirement: Barrier to Falsehood or to Truth?,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol10/iss2/4