In Re Taylor, 655 F. 3d 274 (3^rd Cir. 2011) controlling, the court concluded that a party cannot blindly rely on information provided by an automated system especially when the accuracy of that information has been called into question for verifiable accuracy.  

 

The Best Evidence Rule prohibits the admission of computer generated copies or photo copies which the Best Evidence Rule requires the exclusion of any such proffered copies.

See: In Re Porras, 224 B.R. 367 (W.D. Tex. 1998).
 

The Federal court upheld the exclusion of photocopies;

"they did not have enough indication of reliability”.  

U.S. v. Haddock, 956 F.2d 1534, 1545 (10th Cir. 1992) 

 

Cited in USA v. Ernest Franklin Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964) 

It has often been stated as a universal rule of evidence that the best evidence that is obtainable in the circumstances of the case must be adduced to prove any disputed fact. See, e. g., 1 Jones, Evidence § 199 (4th ed. 1938); 20 Am.Jur., Evidence § 403 (1958). Although the rule apparently enjoyed a broader application at one time, see IV Wigmore, Evidence § 1177 (3d ed. 1940), it is now generally recognized that the "best evidence" phrase denotes only the rule of evidence which requires that the contents of an available written document be proved by introduction of the document itself. See, e. g., Meyers v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 171 F.2d 800 (1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 912, 69 S. Ct. 602, 93 L. Ed. 1076 (1949); Herzig v. Swift & Co., 146 F.2d 444 (2d Cir. 1945); McCormick, Evidence § 195, at 409 (1954); IV Wigmore, Evidence § 1181 (3d ed. 1940). But cf. Watson v. United States, 224 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1955).So limited, there is no question as to the meaning of the rule. As stated in 20 Am.Jur., Evidence § 406 (1958):
 

 

"Where proof is to be made of some fact which is recorded in a writing, the best evidence of the contents of the writing consists in the actual production of the document itself. Any proof of a lower degree is secondary evidence which will be received as proof only where nonproduction of the writing is properly accounted for. The contents of a written instrument may not, as a general rule, be proved by parol, unless the failure to produce the paper itself is accounted for. The principle is controlling in every case wherein it is sought to prove the contents of written instruments of any kind whatsoever. * 

 

As defined by McCormick, the rule is that "in proving the terms of a writing, where such terms are material, the original writing must be produced, unless it is shown to be unavailable for some reason other than the serious fault of the proponent." McCormick, Evidence § 196 (1954). 

 

It would seem that this case, involving as it does secondary evidence of a writing, without any explanation of the failure to produce the writing itself, is within the mandate of the best evidence rule. The Government argues, however, that the rule is not applicable here because the purpose of the Government in offering the evidence was only to identify the check found in Alexander's possession. With this contention we cannot agree. It is true, as the Government urges, that the best evidence rule is aimed only at excluding evidence which concerns the contents of a writing and testimony as to other facts about a writing, such as its existence or identity, may be admissible. As stated in IV Wigmore, Evidence § 1242 (3d ed. 1940):

 

“The real purpose of, and reasons for, the best evidence rule are well stated by Dean Wigmore: "These reasons are simple and obvious enough, as dictated by common sense and long experience. They may be summed up in this way: (1) As between a supposed literal copy and the original, the copy is always liable to errors on the part of the copyist, whether by wilfulness or by inadvertence; this contingency wholly disappears when the original is produced”.  

 

As pointed out by Wigmore, "where a document is referred to as identical with or the same as another document, or as helping to identify some transaction or some other physical object, the question is a difficult one; and the ruling will depend upon whether in the case in hand greater emphasis and importance is to be given to the detailed marks of peculiarity or to the document as a whole regarded as an ordinary describable thing." IV Wigmore, Evidence § 1244 (3d ed. 1940). Here the emphasis was clearly and of necessity on the "detailed marks of peculiarity" which the check bore.
 

USA v. Ernest Franklin Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964) 

 

The Eleventh Circuit "has consistently held that conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value," and thus, are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985). 

 

 “What does not appear in the record, and what does not exist in fact, are one and the same in law. 

Courts can act upon nothing that does not duly appear in the record."

Treatise on Suits in Chancery -  Gibson, Sec. 62(1) (1907)

 

Maxim: “A fact not appearing is presumed not to exist”.
 

Maxim: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.