Article IX: Authentication by Experience or Observation

Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence 
(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. 
(b) Examples. The following are examples only—not a complete list—of evidence that satisfies the requirement: 
(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. 
(2) Nonexpert Opinion About Handwriting. A nonexpert’s opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation. 
(3) Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact. A comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact with a specimen that the court has found is genuine. 
(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances. 
(5) Opinion About a Voice. An opinion identifying a person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker. 
...
(10) Methods Provided by a Statute or Rule. Any method of authentication or 
identification allowed by a statute or other rule prescribed under statutory authority. 

The three most common ways to authenticate a piece of evidence comes from the non-exhaustive list in Rule 901(b): by direct testimony from a witness with personal knowledge,  by comparison with other authenticated evidence, or by circumstantial evidence. The ultimate test for the court is to determine whether the proponent of the evidence has supplied enough facts through the witness sufficient to convince a reasonable juror to conclude that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.  It is important to note that the practitioner doesn’t have to prove that the piece of evidence is authentic “beyond a reasonable doubt” or to an “absolute moral certainty”  because the value of the evidence ultimately belongs to the fact finder. So long as the court is satisfied that the proponent has established that a rational juror could conclude that the evidence is what the proponent claims, it is admissible. 

For example, if a witness is being called to introduce an object like a gun or a knife, the practitioner need only to establish that the witness has previously seen the object at the relevant place or time and recognizes it by its appearance or some other distinctive characteristics like a serial number. Through the non-exhaustive list in Article 9, the practitioner has been given various guidelines to follow in order to establish that the witness “accurately depicts” the item. For objects, pictures and recordings, the rules define when an object is accurately depicted. We will discuss several leading cases and a few others upon which those cases were built to illustrate the requirements for the most common mediums of evidence Article 9: 

1. Hartsfield for objects  
2. Haas for photographs  
3. Angleton for audio recordings  
4. Fowler for videos  
5. Tienda for social media  
6. Pugh for demonstrative videos