🦅
Federal Evidence • Documentary Evidence
EVID#106
Legal Definition
A person can authenticate a letter they receive so long as it is in response to a letter they originally sent to someone else.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you send a letter to your friend asking how they're doing. A few days later, you get a reply in the mail from them. This rule is a common-sense idea that says, "If you get a letter back from a specific person after you sent one to them, it's likely really from them." It's like a way of connecting the dots. Now, for all the cynical and paranoid law students reading this (which should be most of you), obviously it's possible that someone else could have opened your friend's mail and chose to reply to you pretending to be your friend, but those are rabbit trails you need to not get distracted by for simple questions like this one.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam writes a letter to Bob proposing they go into business together. Bob writes back agreeing to the deal. Later, Bob denies making any agreement. At trial, Sam introduces Bob's reply letter. Result: Since Sam can show he wrote the first letter that Bob replied to, Bob's response letter is self-authenticating without further proof.
Hypo 2: Bob writes Sam admitting he owes Sam money. Sam later sues Bob to repay the debt. At trial, Sam introduces Bob's letter as evidence of the debt. Result: Sam cannot authenticate Bob's letter because Sam didn't first write to Bob; instead, Bob sent his to Sam first unsolicited. Sam would need to prove the letter's authenticity through other means.
Hypo 3: Bob is selling a rare comic book online, and Sam, interested in buying it, sends a letter to Bob asking about the condition of the book. Bob replies with a letter describing the comic book's excellent condition. However, upon receiving the comic book, Sam discovers it's in poor condition and sues Bob for misrepresentation. Result: In court, Sam can use Bob's letter as evidence since it's a direct response to his initial inquiry about the comic book's condition and proves that Bob misrepresented the item's quality.
Hypo 2: Bob writes Sam admitting he owes Sam money. Sam later sues Bob to repay the debt. At trial, Sam introduces Bob's letter as evidence of the debt. Result: Sam cannot authenticate Bob's letter because Sam didn't first write to Bob; instead, Bob sent his to Sam first unsolicited. Sam would need to prove the letter's authenticity through other means.
Hypo 3: Bob is selling a rare comic book online, and Sam, interested in buying it, sends a letter to Bob asking about the condition of the book. Bob replies with a letter describing the comic book's excellent condition. However, upon receiving the comic book, Sam discovers it's in poor condition and sues Bob for misrepresentation. Result: In court, Sam can use Bob's letter as evidence since it's a direct response to his initial inquiry about the comic book's condition and proves that Bob misrepresented the item's quality.
Related Concepts
How are ancient documents authenticated?
In California, how are ancient documents authenticated?
In California, what types of documents are self-authenticating?
What is he Best Evidence Rule?
What is the purpose of authentication?
What is the Secondary Evidence Rule?
What types of documents are self-authenticating?
When assessing the Secondary Evidence Rule, when is an original or duplicate not required?
Who can authenticate a voice?
