Federal Rules of Evidence 902(13) and 902(14): self-authentication of machine-generated records and copied electronic data
United States Courts (rule text as printed by the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives) · Both subsections added by the amendment of April 27, 2017, effective December 1, 2017; text verified against the official print current to December 1, 2024 · 2017
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
Two subsections of Rule 902 that let a party authenticate electronic evidence by written certification instead of live testimony: 902(13) covers a record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate result, and 902(14) covers data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file when authenticated by a process of digital identification. Both borrow the certification and pretrial notice machinery of Rule 902(11).
Who it is for, and when
Lawyers should use these rules to take authentication off the trial calendar, and should read the notice requirement carefully because missing it forfeits the shortcut. Examiners should read 902(14) as a description of what their certification has to say about the copy and the hash that identifies it. Together they are the reason a forensic examiner is often asked for a short certificate rather than a trial appearance.
What it does not cover
Self-authentication settles authenticity only; it does not make the evidence relevant, non-hearsay, or admissible, and an opponent can still attack the underlying process. The rules are federal, and state adoption varies.
Go to the source
Open at law.cornell.edu (opens in a new tab)https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
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
- Both subsections added by the amendment of April 27, 2017, effective December 1, 2017; text verified against the official print current to December 1, 2024
- Year
- 2017
- Topics
- authentication, legal-admissibility, evidence-handling, chain-of-custody, us-federal
- Checked at source
- Standards are revised. Confirm the current revision with the publisher before citing this.
Related entries
A law review article by a federal judge who writes extensively on digital evidence, the Reporter to the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, and a leading evidence practitioner, written as Rules 902(13) and 902(14) were being adopted. It works through the authentication routes for electronic evidence and explains what the new self-authentication provisions were designed to do.
A consensus commentary on getting electronically stored information into evidence — authentication, hearsay, best evidence, and the certification routes — rewritten for the second edition to take account of Rules 902(13) and 902(14).
A roughly 1,500-page updated treatise covering discovery and admission of electronic evidence against federal and state rules and case law, in eight chapters, with companion Best Practices Guides including an information technology primer for lawyers.
The UK guide that states the four ACPO principles for handling digital evidence — do not change the original data, record everything done, have a competent person do any live examination, and place responsibility for compliance on the officer in charge. Its own front matter records that ACPO agreed the revised guide for adoption by police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
An 81-page NIJ guide on the legal handling of digital evidence: search and seizure issues including the Fourth Amendment, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Privacy Protection Act; maintaining evidence integrity; pretrial preparation including authentication and hearsay; courtroom presentation and expert testimony; and a chapter on child pornography cases. Appendices include consent forms and evidence return stipulations.