Interference No. 103,146
Senior party Elson moves for suppression of Barker
exhibits BX-118 through BX-128 along with pages BR8 through
BR46 of the Barker record. In both the motion and Barker’s
opposition
thereto, the parties seem to have confused the requirements
for admissibility and corroboration. Authentication is a
requirement of the law of evidence, and is properly raised in
Elson’s motion to suppress. The requirement that a
proponent’s evidence of conception, reduction to practice,
diligence or derivation be corroborated is a substantive
requirement of interference law and will be dealt with
properly, infra, in considering the parties’ cases-in-chief.
Fed. R. Evid. 901 states that the "requirement of
authentication or identification as a condition precedent to
admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
claims." Among the "illustrations" of authentication is
"testimony of [a] witness with knowledge * * * that a matter
is what it is claimed to be." Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1).
There is absolutely no requirement that a corroborative
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007