Case BriefEvidence, 1/15/14Identity of CaseUniversity of Illinois v. Spalding, 51 A. 731 (N.H. 1901)Page 17 of the casebookSummary of Facts /Procedural HistoryPlaintiff university sues defendant for surety on a bond. Defendant claims that the name of one surety was erased and his written over it, not by him. Plaintiff contended that it was defendant’s own handwriting that was erased (he’d messed up his name or something). TC allowed defendant to introduce some of his tax papers through custodian who attested that they were his and his signature forthe purpose of comparing handwriting. Plaintiff objected as those docs were not properly authenticated.TC allows the evidence, verdict for defendant appealed by plaintiff. Statement of the IssueCan disputed documents not related to the case be admissible for the purposes of comparison to a non-disputed document with disputed handwriting? HoldingWhere the documents introduced for the purpose of comparison are not sufficiently authenticated, they may not be used for comparison. (court talks about purpose of the rule, but not really why these docs weren’t authenticated). ReasoningReasoning for the rule: this is a rational method of investigation, but only when the comparison document is sufficiently authenticated. This will require a high level of authentication otherwise it can betoo easily abused (think notary). There are three reasons to require proper authentication: (1) ignorance of jurors and their inability to make intelligent comparison; (2) danger of unfairness and fraud in the selection of specimens, with no sufficient opportunity for the opposing party to investigate and expose; (3) collateral issues as to the genuineness of the specimens presented. The first objection we don’t need to worry about now that education is general. As both parties have the opportunity to produce and cross-examine these documents, the second objection really doesn’t matter much anymore either. The third objection: not found to be genuine, firmly ground in reason nor authoruiy. Presupposes the existence of genuine standards of comparison. If the documents are disputed, we will just introduce more comparisons (and slippery slope language continues). Things can therefore only be admitted for the purpose of comparison when they are fully established as authentic, and this is not such a case. EvaluationThen how the hell are you supposed to authenticate the first
View Full Document
Unlocking...