In cases where the producing the duplicates is burdensome or exists as a public record, producing an original copy is not a must. Another exemption applies when the parties to a trial admit to the existence of the evidence through a written record. Judges have the power to determine whether a piece of evidence satisfy the rules guiding the use of duplicates as outlined in rules number 1001 to 1008, and 1004 to 1008. Judges derive these powers by virtue of rule number 1008.
However there is an exception to these rules which allows the jury to look into the evidence to determine whether an original copy of the duplicate ever existed or the evidence in question is an original copy. The jury also reviews whether the unoriginal duplicate represents correctly the facts and opinion’s contained in the original copy.
These rules are implemented by the United States court system for the purpose of proving the content of a written document, photography and recording. The rationale in the application of these rules is to ensure that the best available evidence is used in a trial (Garland, 2006). This is to avoid inaccuracies that arise in the following scenarios,
In the case Olmstead v. United States of America, there are restrictions in the use of wiretapping as evidence in a trial court. This case occurred in 1928, and involved the legality of producing wire tapped private conversation as pieces of evidence by United States law enforcement officers. The use of these pieces of evidence was examined according to the provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the American constitution. These sections outline the rights of the defendants in a trial.
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that use of such evidence does not violate the provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerning the rights of the defendants. The decision of the Supreme