Henson and the Best Evidence Rule

From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net>
Subject: Henson and the Best Evidence Rule
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:11:10 -0400
Organization: ARS: Perhaps The Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <l7qletkladgans800b58uup94j4bttn072@4ax.com>

(Apparently California has replaced and renamed the "Best Evidence Rule" with their own version called the "Secondary Evidence Rule."] I presume the material passed muster for "authentication" under Section 1401, due to the Henson deposition in an unrelated case. However, I wonder how or whether it affects the propriety of it that the trier of fact, the jury, only saw redacted versions which grossly distorted the intent of the writings. This seems to amount to deliberately withholding exonerating evidence.
California Codes
California Evidence Code
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1520-1523
1520. The content of a writing may be proved by an otherwise admissible original.

1521. (a) The content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evidence. The court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of writing if the court determines either of the following: (1) A genuine dispute exists concerning material terms of the writing and justice requires the exclusion. (2) Admission of the secondary evidence would be unfair. (b) Nothing in this section makes admissible oral testimony to prove the content of a writing if the testimony is inadmissible under Section 1523 (oral testimony of the content of a writing). (c) Nothing in this section excuses compliance with Section 1401 (authentication). (d) This section shall be known as the "Secondary Evidence Rule."

1522. (a) In addition to the grounds for exclusion authorized by Section 1521, in a criminal action the court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of a writing if the court determines that the original is in the proponent's possession, custody, or control, and the proponent has not made the original reasonably available for inspection at or before trial. This section does not apply to any of the following: (1) A duplicate as defined in Section 260. (2) A writing that is not closely related to the controlling issues in the action. (3) A copy of a writing in the custody of a public entity. (4) A copy of a writing that is recorded in the public records, if the record or a certified copy of it is made evidence of the writing by statute. (b) In a criminal action, a request to exclude secondary evidence of the content of a writing, under this section or any other law, shall not be made in the presence of the jury.

1523. (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, oral testimony is not admissible to prove the content of a writing. (b) Oral testimony of the content of a writing is not made inadmissible by subdivision (a) if the proponent does not have possession or control of a copy of the writing and the original is lost or has been destroyed without fraudulent intent on the part of the proponent of the evidence. (c) Oral testimony of the content of a writing is not made inadmissible by subdivision (a) if the proponent does not have possession or control of the original or a copy of the writing and either of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) Neither the writing nor a copy of the writing was reasonably procurable by the proponent by use of the court's process or by other available means. (2) The writing is not closely related to the controlling issues and it would be inexpedient to require its production. (d) Oral testimony of the content of a writing is not made inadmissible by subdivision (a) if the writing consists of numerous accounts or other writings that cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the evidence sought from them is only the general result of the whole. --- Another section:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/evid/1550-1553.html California Codes
California Evidence Code
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1550-1553
1550. A nonerasable optical image reproduction provided that additions, deletions, or changes to the original document are not permitted by the technology, a photostatic, microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic, or other photographic copy or reproduction, or an enlargement thereof, of a writing is as admissible as the writing itself if the copy or reproduction was made and preserved as a part of the records of a business (as defined by Section 1270) in the regular course of that business. The introduction of the copy, reproduction, or enlargement does not preclude admission of the original writing if it is still in existence. A court may require the introduction of a hard copy printout of the document.

1551. A print, whether enlarged or not, from a photographic film (including a photographic plate, microphotographic film, photostatic negative, or similar reproduction) of an original writing destroyed or lost after such film was taken or a reproduction from an electronic recording of video images on magnetic surfaces is admissible as the original writing itself if, at the time of the taking of such film or electronic recording, the person under whose direction and control it was taken attached thereto, or to the sealed container in which it was placed and has been kept, or incorporated in the film or electronic recording, a certification complying with the provisions of Section 1531 and stating the date on which, and the fact that, it was so taken under his direction and control.

1552. (a) A printed representation of computer information or a computer program is presumed to be an accurate representation of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. If a party to an action introduces evidence that a printed representation of computer information or computer program is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the printed representation is an accurate representation of the existence and content of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent. (b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to computer-generated official records certified in accordance with Section 452.5 or 1530.

1553. A printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the images it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. If a party to an action introduces evidence that a printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the printed representation is an accurate representation of the existence and content of the images that it purports to represent.