Home › Federal › Rules of Evidence › Rule 1003

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Fed. R. Evid. 1003

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 1003 Admissibility of Duplicates

CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS

← Previous Rule 1002: Requirement of the Original Next → Rule 1004: Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content

Rule Text

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

Copies of documents are generally just as good as originals in federal court. You don't need to track down the original just to prove what a document says.

There are two exceptions. First, if someone has a real reason to doubt whether the original was genuine, the court may require the actual original. Second, if using a copy instead of the original would somehow be unfair given the situation, the court can reject the copy. These exceptions don't come up often, so in most cases, a clear photocopy or digital copy will work fine.

Summary generated March 09, 2026

Committee Notes

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

When the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court with accuracy and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method which insures accuracy and genuineness. By definition in Rule 1001(4), supra, a “duplicate” possesses this character.

Therefore, if no genuine issue exists as to authenticity and no other reason exists for requiring the original, a duplicate is admissible under the rule. This position finds support in the decisions, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1964), no error in admitting photostatic copies of checks instead of original microfilm in absence of suggestion to trial judge that photostats were incorrect; Johns v. United States, 323 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1963), not error to admit concededly accurate tape recording made from original wire recording; Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1963), not error to admit copy of agreement when opponent had original and did not on appeal claim any discrepancy. Other reasons for requiring the original may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party. United States v. Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964). And see Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 265 F.2d 418, 76 A.L.R.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1959).

Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93–650

The Committee approved this Rule in the form submitted by the Court, with the expectation that the courts would be liberal in deciding that a “genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original.”

Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

The language of Rule 1003 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

(, Jan. 2, 1975, ; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

← Previous Rule 1002: Requirement of the Original Next → Rule 1004: Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content