Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Authentication

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

AuthenticationQuestion 1 of 20

In a federal drug trafficking prosecution, the government seeks to introduce an audio recording of a phone call. An informant, who was a party to the call, is unavailable to testify. The government calls a police officer who has worked with the defendant on a prior, unrelated case. The officer testifies that he spoke with the defendant in person on at least five occasions over several months. Based on that experience, the officer testifies that he recognizes the voice on the recording as the defendant's.

The defendant objects that the officer's testimony is insufficient to authenticate the voice on the recording. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the officer's familiarity was not gained for the purposes of litigation.

Overrule the objection, because an opinion identifying a person's voice based on hearing it on any occasion is sufficient.

Sustain the objection, because voice identification by a lay witness requires corroboration, such as testimony from a party to the call.

Overrule the objection, but only if the court first holds a hearing to determine the scientific reliability of voice identification.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Authentication

Practice Authentication in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Authentication, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

The defendant objects that the officer's testimony is insufficient to authenticate the voice on the recording. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the officer's familiarity was not gained for the purposes of litigation.
Overrule the objection, because an opinion identifying a person's voice based on hearing it on any occasion is sufficient. (correct answer)
Sustain the objection, because voice identification by a lay witness requires corroboration, such as testimony from a party to the call.
Overrule the objection, but only if the court first holds a hearing to determine the scientific reliability of voice identification.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under FRE 901(b)(5), a voice can be authenticated by an opinion identifying it based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker. The familiarity can be gained before or after the voice in question was recorded, and it need not be acquired for the purposes of litigation. The officer's five prior conversations are a sufficient basis for his opinion. A is incorrect because the purpose for which familiarity was gained is irrelevant. C is incorrect as corroboration is not required; the opinion testimony itself is sufficient for authentication, with the jury determining its weight. D is incorrect because this type of lay witness opinion testimony does not require a scientific reliability hearing like expert testimony under Daubert.

Question 2

In a criminal fraud case, the prosecution introduces a notarized affidavit signed by an out-of-state witness who is now deceased. The document bears the signature of the witness, a notary public's signature, and the notary's official seal. The defense counsel objects, arguing that without the witness being present for cross-examination, there is no way to authenticate the signature on the affidavit as genuine.

Is the notarized affidavit properly authenticated? Select one.

Yes, because documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed by a notary public are self-authenticating. (correct answer)
No, because the right of confrontation in a criminal case requires the witness to be present to authenticate their own signature.
Yes, because the death of the signatory automatically authenticates any signed documents they left behind.
No, because the authenticity of a document must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which is impossible if the signer is deceased.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. FRE 902(8) provides that acknowledged documents—those accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment that is lawfully executed by a notary public or another authorized officer—are self-authenticating. The notarization itself is sufficient evidence of authenticity for admissibility purposes. B is incorrect because it confuses authentication with the Confrontation Clause. While admitting the affidavit's contents might violate the Confrontation Clause because it is testimonial and the witness cannot be cross-examined, the document is still considered authenticated under Rule 902. The authentication objection should be overruled, even if a separate hearsay or confrontation objection might be sustained. C and D are incorrect statements of the law.

Question 3

You are representing a client in a breach of contract action against a corporation. To prove the date a crucial order was received, you seek to introduce a printout of an email purportedly sent by the corporation's CEO to your client. The email was produced by your client, who will testify she received it. The email has the CEO's name in the 'From' line, contains the corporation's standard email signature block, and discusses details of the business deal that would typically be known only to the parties involved.

The corporation objects to the email's admission, arguing that your client cannot authenticate a message sent by someone else. What is your best argument for authentication? Select one.

The email is self-authenticating as a business record under FRE 902.
The email is authenticated by its distinctive characteristics, including its content and appearance. (correct answer)
The email is authenticated by the testimony of the recipient, which is always sufficient for incoming correspondence.
The email is authenticated under the best evidence rule because it is a printout of a digital communication.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under FRE 901(b)(4), evidence can be authenticated by its distinctive characteristics, taken together with all the circumstances. Here, the email's appearance (CEO's name, corporate signature block) and content (details of the specific deal) provide circumstantial evidence that it originated from the CEO of the corporation. This is a common method for authenticating emails. A is incorrect because while the email might be a business record, it is not self-authenticating; it would require a certification or testimony from a custodian. C is an overstatement; while the recipient's testimony is part of the foundation, the authentication rests on the circumstantial evidence, not just the fact of receipt. D confuses authentication with the best evidence rule (FRE 1001-1003); the best evidence rule concerns proving the content of a writing, while authentication concerns its genuineness.

Question 4

At a trial for felony possession of a firearm, the prosecution seeks to introduce the gun found at the scene of the arrest. Officer Smith testifies that she seized a 9mm pistol from the defendant's car, carved her initials 'AS' into the handle, and placed it in an evidence bag. She identifies the pistol in court as the same one because it is a 9mm pistol and has her initials carved into the handle. The defendant objects, arguing that the prosecution must establish a full chain of custody for a fungible item like a mass-produced pistol.

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because a chain of custody is required to authenticate fungible evidence like a firearm.
Overrule the objection, because the pistol was made unique by the officer's initials, allowing for authentication by direct identification. (correct answer)
Sustain the objection, because defacing evidence by carving initials into it renders it inadmissible.
Overrule the objection, because the defendant has the burden of proving the evidence was tampered with after seizure.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Evidence can be authenticated by witness testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. While a chain of custody is often used for fungible items (like drugs or generic bullets), it is not necessary if the item has been rendered unique and can be identified on that basis. Here, Officer Smith's testimony that she carved her initials into the pistol's handle makes it readily identifiable. Her in-court identification based on this unique mark is sufficient to authenticate it under FRE 901(b)(1). A is incorrect because the pistol is no longer fungible in the legal sense once it has been uniquely marked. C is incorrect; marking evidence for identification purposes is a standard and permissible police procedure. D is incorrect as the proponent of the evidence (the prosecution) bears the initial burden of authentication.

Question 5

In a products liability case, the plaintiff offers into evidence a user manual for a power saw. The manual contains a statement about the saw's safety features. The manual has the defendant manufacturer's logo and trade name prominently printed on its cover and throughout the document. The plaintiff's attorney states that the manual was included in the box with the saw when the plaintiff purchased it from a retail store.

The defendant manufacturer objects, claiming a lack of authentication. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the manual? Select one.

Inadmissible, because the plaintiff must call an employee of the manufacturer to testify that the manual is genuine.
Inadmissible, because the manual constitutes hearsay, and its authenticity does not overcome that objection.
Admissible, because trade inscriptions indicating origin are self-authenticating. (correct answer)
Admissible, because the manual qualifies as an ancient document since the saw model is over 20 years old.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 902(7) provides that trade inscriptions, signs, tags, or labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or control are self-authenticating. The manufacturer's logo and trade name on the manual fall squarely within this rule, making the manual self-authenticating as originating from the defendant. A is incorrect because self-authenticating evidence does not require extrinsic evidence like witness testimony. B is incorrect because authentication is a separate issue from hearsay. While the manual might contain hearsay, it could be admissible as a statement of a party opponent, and in any event, the authentication objection should be overruled. D is irrelevant and likely incorrect; the age of the saw model does not make the manual an ancient document under FRE 901(b)(8), which has specific requirements about age (pre-1998), condition, and place found.

Question 6

In a boundary dispute, a landowner seeks to introduce a survey map dated 1995. The map was discovered in a box of old deeds and property records in the attic of the landowner's family home, which has been owned by the family since 1950. The map appears faded and brittle but has no signs of alteration or erasures. The surveyor who created the map is deceased.

The opposing party objects to the map's admission for lack of authentication. What is the strongest basis for admitting the map? Select one.

The map is self-authenticating as a certified public record.
The map is authenticated under the ancient document rule. (correct answer)
The map is authenticated by the landowner's testimony that it came from his family's attic.
The map is authenticated because its contents conform with other known facts about the property.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under FRE 901(b)(8), a document can be authenticated as an 'ancient document' if the proponent shows it (A) was created before January 1, 1998, (B) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity, and (C) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be. Here, the map is dated 1995 (pre-1998), has no signs of alteration, and was found in a logical place for old family property records. All elements are met. A is incorrect; there is no indication the map is a public record or that it is certified. C is incomplete; the landowner's testimony is part of the foundation for the ancient document rule (establishing where it was found), but the rule itself is the basis for authentication. D describes authentication by distinctive characteristics, which could be an argument, but the ancient document rule is a more direct and stronger basis given the facts.

Question 7

A driver is on trial for leaving the scene of an accident. A witness testifies that she heard the crash, ran to her window, and saw a blue sedan speeding away. She could not see the license plate number. The prosecutor asks, 'A few minutes later, did you receive a phone call?' The witness answers 'Yes.' The prosecutor then asks, 'What was the first thing the caller said?' The witness is expected to testify that an agitated man's voice said, 'I'm so sorry, I just hit a car on your street and panicked. Is everyone okay?' The witness did not recognize the voice. Records show the call came from the defendant's registered cell phone.

The defense objects to the witness's testimony about the phone call's content for lack of authentication. How should the court rule? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the witness could not identify the caller's voice.
Sustain the objection, because the statement is self-serving hearsay.
Overrule the objection, because the caller's statement related to a startling event and was made under the stress of excitement.
Overrule the objection, because the call was made from a number assigned to the defendant and the content of the call provides circumstantial evidence of the speaker's identity. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. FRE 901(b)(6) allows for the authentication of a telephone conversation by evidence that a call was made to a number assigned at the time to a particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show the person who answered was the one called. A similar principle applies to outgoing calls. Here, the facts that the call originated from the defendant's phone number and that the caller made a statement revealing knowledge of the recent accident on that street ('I just hit a car on your street') provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to authenticate the caller as the defendant. A is incorrect because voice recognition is not the only way to authenticate a call. B is incorrect because the statement is against the defendant's interest, not self-serving, and hearsay is a separate issue from authentication. C describes the excited utterance hearsay exception, which is irrelevant to the initial question of authenticating the speaker's identity.

Question 8

A defendant is charged with murder. The prosecution seeks to introduce a knife that police found in the defendant's apartment. The knife has a unique, custom-made handle. At trial, a witness testifies that he was at a party with the defendant and the victim on the night of the murder. He states that he saw the defendant arguing with the victim and that the defendant was holding a knife with a distinctive handle. The prosecutor shows the witness the knife recovered from the defendant's apartment. The witness testifies, 'That looks exactly like the knife the defendant was holding.'

The defense objects that the knife is not authenticated because the witness's identification is not 100% positive and no chain of custody was established in court. How should the court rule? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because a murder weapon must be authenticated through an unbroken chain of custody.
Overrule the objection, because physical evidence found in a defendant's possession is presumed to be connected to the crime.
Sustain the objection, because the witness's testimony that the knife 'looks exactly like' the one he saw is too speculative.
Overrule the objection, because the knife's unique handle allows for authentication by a witness with knowledge. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter evidence authentication questions, focus on whether there's sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the item is what it purports to be. Authentication doesn't require absolute certainty or perfection. The correct answer is D because the knife's unique, custom-made handle provides a distinctive characteristic that allows the witness to authenticate it based on his personal knowledge. The witness observed the defendant holding a knife with a distinctive handle during the argument, and he can now identify the recovered knife as looking "exactly like" the one he saw. This satisfies the authentication requirement under evidence rules, which only demand sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the item is what it claims to be. Answer A is incorrect because murder weapons don't require an unbroken chain of custody for authentication. While chain of custody can be one method of authentication, it's not mandatory, and items can be authenticated through other means like witness identification. Answer B is wrong because there's no legal presumption that physical evidence found in a defendant's possession is automatically connected to a crime. Such evidence still must be properly authenticated through admissible testimony or documentation. Answer C misunderstands the authentication standard. The witness's testimony that the knife "looks exactly like" the one he observed isn't too speculative when combined with the knife's unique characteristics. Courts don't require witnesses to be 100% certain in their identification. Remember: Authentication requires sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to believe the item is genuine—not absolute proof or perfect chain of custody. Distinctive characteristics often provide adequate authentication through witness testimony.

Question 9

You are representing a client in a commercial dispute. To establish a key term of an agreement, you want to introduce data from a specialized accounting software program used by the opposing party. You obtained the data file during discovery. You call the opposing party's chief financial officer (CFO) to the stand. The CFO testifies that her company uses the software, that data is entered by trained employees at or near the time of transactions, and that the company relies on the accuracy of the software's output in the course of its business. The CFO did not personally create the specific data file in question.

The opposing counsel objects that the CFO cannot authenticate the data file because she did not create it. What is the court's likely ruling? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the specific employee who entered the data must be called to testify.
Overrule the objection, because any documents produced in discovery are deemed automatically authenticated for trial.
Sustain the objection, because computer-generated data must be authenticated by a computer forensics expert.
Overrule the objection, because the CFO's testimony describing the process of data creation and reliance on it is sufficient. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of authentication requirements for computer-generated evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Authentication doesn't require the person who physically created the evidence to testify — it simply requires sufficient evidence to support a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be. The correct answer is D because the CFO's testimony establishes the foundation needed to authenticate the data file. She testified about the company's regular use of the software, that trained employees enter data at or near the time of transactions, and that the company relies on the software's accuracy in its business operations. This testimony about the process and reliability of the data creation system is sufficient to authenticate the evidence, even though she didn't personally input the specific data. Answer A is wrong because authentication doesn't require calling the specific person who created the evidence. A witness with knowledge of the process can authenticate it. Answer B is incorrect because discovery production doesn't automatically authenticate documents for trial — proper foundation must still be laid. Answer C is wrong because computer-generated data doesn't automatically require expert testimony for authentication; a witness familiar with the system and its reliability can provide adequate foundation. Remember this key distinction: authentication focuses on whether you can show the evidence is what you claim it is, not who specifically created it. A witness with knowledge of the relevant process, system, or chain of custody can often provide sufficient authentication testimony without being the original creator.

Question 10

A plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit seeks to introduce a photograph of the accident scene. The photograph shows a large pothole in the road where the plaintiff claims her car's axle broke. The plaintiff calls a witness who was a passenger in her car at the time of the accident. The witness did not take the photograph and does not know who did. However, the witness is prepared to testify that the photograph accurately depicts the pothole and the surrounding area as it appeared on the day of the accident.

The defendant objects to the admission of the photograph on the grounds of improper authentication. Is the witness's testimony sufficient to authenticate the photograph? Select one.

Yes, because a witness with personal knowledge can testify that the photograph is a fair and accurate representation of the scene it purports to depict. (correct answer)
No, because the person who took the photograph must testify to the conditions under which it was taken, including the type of camera and lens used.
Yes, because photographs of public roads are considered self-authenticating public records if they appear accurate on their face.
No, because the authenticity of a photograph in a personal injury case must be stipulated to by both parties or confirmed by a neutral expert.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901(b)(1), an item of evidence can be authenticated by the testimony of a witness with knowledge that the item is what it is claimed to be. For photographs, this standard is met if a witness with personal knowledge of the scene testifies that the photograph is a fair and accurate representation of that scene at the relevant time. The witness does not need to be the photographer. B is incorrect because the photographer's testimony is one way to authenticate, but not the only way. C is incorrect as photographs are not self-authenticating public records. D is incorrect as there is no rule requiring stipulation or expert confirmation for authenticating a standard photograph.

Question 11

The opposing party objects to the map's admission for lack of authentication. What is the strongest basis for admitting the map? Select one.

The map is self-authenticating as a certified public record.
The map is authenticated under the ancient document rule. (correct answer)
The map is authenticated by the landowner's testimony that it came from his family's attic.
The map is authenticated because its contents conform with other known facts about the property.

Question 12

Is the notarized affidavit properly authenticated? Select one.

Yes, because documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed by a notary public are self-authenticating. (correct answer)
No, because the right of confrontation in a criminal case requires the witness to be present to authenticate their own signature.
Yes, because the death of the signatory automatically authenticates any signed documents they left behind.
No, because the authenticity of a document must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which is impossible if the signer is deceased.

Question 13

You are defending a client charged with sending a threatening letter. The prosecution's key evidence is the letter itself. The prosecution calls a document examiner as an expert witness. The expert testifies that she compared the handwriting on the threatening letter to a sample of your client's handwriting that was compelled by court order. The expert concludes that, in her professional opinion, your client wrote the threatening letter.

You object to the expert's testimony, arguing that it is not a valid method of authentication. What is the likely ruling? Select one.

Sustained, because compelling a handwriting sample violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Overruled, because an expert witness may compare a questioned item with an authenticated specimen and give an opinion. (correct answer)
Sustained, because only the jury is permitted to compare a handwriting sample to the document in question.
Overruled, but only if the expert can state her conclusion with 100% scientific certainty.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. FRE 901(b)(3) allows for the authentication of an item through a comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact with a specimen that has been authenticated. A court-ordered handwriting exemplar is an authenticated specimen. Therefore, an expert's testimony based on a comparison between the letter and the exemplar is a proper method of authentication. A is incorrect; the Supreme Court has held that compelling a handwriting exemplar does not violate the Fifth Amendment because it is not testimonial communication. C is incorrect because both the expert and the jury (as trier of fact) are permitted to make such a comparison. D is incorrect; expert testimony does not require 100% certainty. The expert must state her opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, and the jury will determine its weight.

Question 14

At an arson trial, the prosecution attempts to admit a container of gasoline found at the fire scene. An officer testifies he found the can, photographed it, and placed it in the evidence room. A second officer testifies he retrieved the can from the evidence room and took it to the lab. The lab technician testifies she received the can from the second officer and tested its contents. However, there is no testimony regarding who had access to the evidence room or the procedures for signing evidence in and out during the 24 hours the can was stored there.

The defense moves to exclude the gasoline can, arguing the chain of custody is insufficient. What is the likely outcome of the motion? Select one.

Granted, because the prosecution must account for the evidence's location and custody at all times.
Denied, because the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find the can is what the prosecution claims it to be. (correct answer)
Granted, because gasoline is a fungible substance that requires an absolutely unbroken chain of custody for admission.
Denied, because the burden is on the defendant to produce affirmative evidence of tampering or substitution.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. To authenticate an item like this, the prosecution must establish a chain of custody sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. The standard is not absolute certainty, nor does it require a perfect, unbroken chain. The proponent only needs to show a reasonable probability that the evidence has not been changed or altered. Minor gaps or weaknesses in the chain of custody, such as the lack of testimony about the evidence room's log-in procedures, go to the weight of the evidence for the jury to consider, not its admissibility. A and C are incorrect because they state too high a standard for authentication. D is incorrect because the initial burden of production for authentication is on the proponent (the prosecution).

Question 15

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because a chain of custody is required to authenticate fungible evidence like a firearm.
Overrule the objection, because the pistol was made unique by the officer's initials, allowing for authentication by direct identification. (correct answer)
Sustain the objection, because defacing evidence by carving initials into it renders it inadmissible.
Overrule the objection, because the defendant has the burden of proving the evidence was tampered with after seizure.

Question 16

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff's attorney seeks to introduce a statement from a well-known medical treatise to help establish the standard of care. The attorney asks the defendant's expert witness on cross-examination, 'Doctor, do you recognize this treatise as a reliable authority in your field?' The expert acknowledges that the treatise is indeed a reliable authority.

The plaintiff's attorney now seeks to read the relevant statement from the treatise into evidence. The defense objects on the grounds of authenticity and hearsay. How should the court rule on the authentication of the treatise? Select one.

The treatise is not authenticated because its publisher must be called to certify its publication.
The treatise is not authenticated because treatises cannot be authenticated through the testimony of an opposing party's expert.
The treatise is authenticated for purposes of the learned treatise exception to hearsay by the expert's admission that it is a reliable authority. (correct answer)
The treatise is authenticated because it is a published work and is therefore self-authenticating under the rule for newspapers and periodicals.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question links authentication with the learned treatise hearsay exception under FRE 803(18). A prerequisite for using the exception is establishing that the treatise is a reliable authority. This can be done through the testimony of an expert witness, including an admission on cross-examination. The expert's acknowledgment that the treatise is a reliable authority serves to authenticate it for the purpose of the exception. A is incorrect. B is incorrect; an admission by any expert, including the opposing party's, is a valid way to establish reliability. D is incorrect; while books are published, they are not self-authenticating in the same way as newspapers or trade inscriptions. Their authority must be established through expert testimony or judicial notice.

Question 17

In a civil trial, a party seeks to introduce a newspaper article from a major national newspaper dated two years ago. The article reports on a public statement made by the opposing party's CEO. The party offers the physical copy of the newspaper page where the article appears. The opposing party objects, arguing that the newspaper has not been properly authenticated.

How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, unless the author of the article is called to testify to its accuracy.
Sustain the objection, because newspaper articles are inadmissible hearsay.
Overrule the objection, because printed materials purporting to be a newspaper or periodical are self-authenticating. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because any document more than one year old is considered an ancient document.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 902(6) provides that printed materials purporting to be a newspaper or periodical are self-authenticating. No extrinsic evidence, such as the testimony of the author or an editor, is required to establish that the document is, in fact, the newspaper it purports to be. A is therefore incorrect. B is incorrect because it confuses authentication with hearsay. While the content of the article might be hearsay if offered for its truth, the document itself is authenticated. The statement by the CEO within the article might also be admissible as a statement of a party opponent. D is incorrect as the ancient document rule under the FRE requires the document to have been created before 1998, not just be more than a year old.

Question 18

In a will contest, the challenger claims a 1990 handwritten will is a forgery. The will's proponent seeks to authenticate the testator's signature by calling the testator's neighbor. The neighbor testifies that she is not a handwriting expert but that she corresponded with the testator via handwritten letters for over 20 years. Based on that correspondence, she believes the signature on the will is genuine.

The challenger objects that a lay witness is not qualified to give an opinion on the genuineness of handwriting. Is the neighbor's testimony admissible to authenticate the signature? Select one.

No, because only a qualified handwriting expert or the trier of fact can authenticate a signature.
No, because the neighbor's familiarity with the handwriting was not acquired for the purpose of the current litigation.
Yes, because a layperson can offer an opinion on handwriting based on familiarity not acquired for the current litigation. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the letters the neighbor received from the testator are also entered into evidence for comparison.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 901(b)(2) explicitly allows for the authentication of handwriting by a nonexpert opinion based on familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation. The neighbor's 20 years of correspondence with the testator establishes this familiarity. A is incorrect because lay witness testimony is a permissible method of authentication. B states the opposite of the rule; the familiarity must not have been acquired for the litigation. D is incorrect because while comparison with an authenticated exemplar is another valid method under FRE 901(b)(3), it is not a prerequisite for the admissibility of lay opinion testimony under 901(b)(2).

Question 19

The defense objects to the witness's testimony about the phone call's content for lack of authentication. How should the court rule? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the witness could not identify the caller's voice.
Sustain the objection, because the statement is self-serving hearsay.
Overrule the objection, because the caller's statement related to a startling event and was made under the stress of excitement.
Overrule the objection, because the call was made from a number assigned to the defendant and the content of the call provides circumstantial evidence of the speaker's identity. (correct answer)

Question 20

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. The prosecution seeks to admit a surveillance video that shows a person resembling the defendant robbing the bank. The bank's security manager is called to testify. The manager states that the video system records automatically to a secure server, that he retrieved the video file for the correct time and date of the robbery, and that the file has not been altered since he retrieved it. He also testifies that the video system was working properly on that day. The manager was not present during the robbery and cannot personally identify the person in the video.

The defendant objects that the video is not properly authenticated because no witness can testify that it is a fair and accurate depiction of the robbery itself. How should the court rule? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the 'fair and accurate depiction' standard requires a witness who observed the events depicted.
Sustain the objection, because the manager cannot identify the robber, making his testimony irrelevant to authentication.
Overrule the objection, because evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result is a valid method of authentication. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because surveillance video from a commercial establishment is self-authenticating.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario illustrates the 'silent witness' theory of authentication. Under FRE 901(b)(9), evidence can be authenticated by showing that a process or system produces an accurate result. Here, the manager's testimony about how the surveillance system works, that it was functioning correctly, and how the file was retrieved establishes the reliability of the recording process, thereby authenticating the video even without an eyewitness to the events. A is incorrect because the 'fair and accurate depiction' standard, typically used for photographs, is not the only method; the process-based authentication of 901(b)(9) is also valid. B is incorrect because the manager's inability to identify the robber goes to the weight of the evidence, not its authenticity. The manager is authenticating the video recording process, not its specific content. D is incorrect; surveillance videos are not self-authenticating under FRE 902.