Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(9): authenticating a process or system
United States Courts (rule text as printed by the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives) · Enacted January 2, 1975; restyled by the amendment effective December 1, 2011; text verified against the official print current to December 1, 2024 · 1975
Access and status
Cost
Free
Free to read or download at source. No account, no purchase.
Status
Current
Current as at the verification date below. Standards and tools both move — confirm at source before you rely on it.
What it is
An illustration of sufficient authentication: "Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result." It is the route by which the output of software, an acquisition tool, or an automated system is authenticated through testimony about the tool rather than about the document.
Who it is for, and when
This is the rule an examiner is actually testifying under when explaining what an imaging tool or extraction tool does and why its output is accurate. Lawyers should plan the testimony around the two halves of the rule: describe the process, then show it produces an accurate result. It remains the live route whenever the opponent declines to accept a 902(13) or 902(14) certificate.
What it does not cover
It sets no threshold for how much validation is enough and names no test, tool, or error-rate standard; those come from case law and Rule 702. It is federal, and it says nothing about weight once the evidence is admitted.
Go to the source
Open at law.cornell.edu (opens in a new tab)https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901
Details
- Type
- Standard or guidance
- Written for
- Lawyers and courtsWorking examinerLawyers and courts, Working examiner
- Publisher
- United States Courts (rule text as printed by the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives)
- Version verified
- Enacted January 2, 1975; restyled by the amendment effective December 1, 2011; text verified against the official print current to December 1, 2024
- Year
- 1975
- Topics
- authentication, validation, legal-admissibility, expert-testimony, us-federal
- Checked at source
- Standards are revised. Confirm the current revision with the publisher before citing this.
Related entries
The decision holding that the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye's general-acceptance test, govern expert scientific testimony, and that the trial judge acts as a gatekeeper for reliability and fit. It offers a non-exclusive list of considerations: testability, peer review and publication, known or potential error rate, standards controlling the technique's operation, and general acceptance.
NIST's scientific foundation review of digital forensics, examining the peer-reviewed literature, academic material and practitioner guidance behind digital investigation techniques. It concludes the techniques rest on established computer science methods and are reliable when properly applied, while naming specific limits.
The federal admissibility rule for expert testimony. The 2023 amendment moved the burden into the rule text — the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each of the four requirements is met — and rewrote subsection (d) so that the opinion must reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The decision extending the Daubert gatekeeping obligation to all expert testimony under Rule 702, including technical and other specialized knowledge, and holding that the Daubert considerations are flexible rather than mandatory, with the trial court's choices reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The judiciary's own reference work on scientific and technical evidence, produced jointly by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies, made up of reference guides written by scientists and judges on individual fields plus chapters on the judge's gatekeeping role. The fourth edition rewrites every guide carried over from 2011 and adds new guides on eyewitness identification, computer science, and artificial intelligence.