- 14 -
Petitioner Bui testified that the original of the rental
agreement is in the possession of the lessor, Mr. Tran Trung.
Petitioner Bui also testified that she was unaware of Mr. Trung's
location and that she has had no contact with Mr. Trung since
returning the six sewing machines to him at the end of 1988.
Petitioner Bui further testified that the document was a true and
exact copy signed and received by her on the date she picked up
the sewing machines. The Federal Rules of Evidence generally
permit the use of copies rather than originals, but an exception
is made if a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original. Fed. R. Evid. 1003; see Tyson v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v.
Smith, 893 F.2d 1573 (9th Cir. 1990); Christopher v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-394. Respondent, however, does not
establish in any way how the document is fatally flawed.
Respondent contends that the authenticity of the lease agreement
is suspect because, without the original, the date on which the
document was created is unknown. We are unpersuaded by this
argument. Furthermore, merely objecting to the admission of
evidence does not make that evidence suspect, nor does it rise to
a showing that a genuine issue of authenticity exists. Tyson v.
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., supra at 761. Accordingly, we find
that a genuine issue has not been raised as to the authenticity
of the lease agreement, and it is admissible under rule 1003 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011