Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Generally speaking, the Federal Rules of Evidence require evidence to be authenticated before it can be admitted. Typically evidence is authenticated by some form of extrinsic proof sufficient to support a finding that the evidence is what the proponent claims it is. Often that proof comes in the form of a witness who can verify the evidence through testimony.
Federal Rule of Evidence 902 sets out various types of evidence that are “self-authenticating” — evidence that needs no extrinsic proof of authenticity to be admitted. Examples of self-authenticating evidence include: public documents and records that are sealed, signed or otherwise certified; official publications; newspapers and periodicals; and certain types of certified business records.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.