Legal Definitions - original-writing rule

The original-writing rule, also known as the best-evidence rule, is a legal principle that generally requires the original document, recording, or photograph to be presented in court when its contents are being offered as proof. The primary purpose of this rule is to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of evidence, preventing parties from misrepresenting the contents of important documents or recordings. If the original is unavailable (e.g., lost or destroyed) without fault of the party trying to introduce it, other reliable evidence of its contents, such as a copy or testimony, may be allowed.

• Example 1: A Property Deed Dispute

  Imagine a situation where two neighbors are disputing the exact boundary line between their properties. One neighbor claims a specific portion of land belongs to them based on the description in their property deed, while the other neighbor disagrees.

  To resolve this, the court would require the presentation of the original property deed for both parcels of land. The original-writing rule applies because the precise wording, measurements, and legal descriptions contained within the original deed are central to determining the true boundary. A photocopy or someone's memory of what the deed says would generally not be sufficient if the original document is available.

• Example 2: A Loan Agreement Case

  Consider a lawsuit where a bank is trying to collect an unpaid debt from a borrower. The borrower claims that the interest rate specified in the loan agreement was different from what the bank is now demanding.

  In this scenario, the bank would be required to present the original signed loan agreement to the court. The original-writing rule ensures that the court can examine the exact terms, including the interest rate, signatures, and any amendments, as they appear on the authentic document. This prevents either party from misrepresenting the agreed-upon financial terms.

• Example 3: A Defamation Lawsuit Involving a Video

  Suppose a public figure sues a news outlet for defamation, claiming that a video broadcast by the outlet falsely depicted them in a negative light. The news outlet argues that the video was accurately edited and did not alter the original context.

  To determine the truth, the court would likely require the news outlet to present the original, unedited video footage from which the broadcast segment was taken. The original-writing rule (extended to recordings) is crucial here because the content of the original video is directly at issue. Comparing the original footage to the broadcast version allows the court to assess whether any editing distorted the public figure's actions or words, thereby establishing if defamation occurred.