I believe that the federal rules of evidence provide the following definitions which is taken from [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/index.html]  It is possible that these definitions have been superseded and if so I would certainly be interested in the most recent one.

Federal Rules of Evidence
ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS [Table of Contents]
Rule 1001. Definitions
For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.
(2) Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.
(3) Original. An "original" of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".
(4) Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.


In addition it is well to remember that there may be different and inconsistent legal definitions of records in various legal/regulatory sources.  While records managers are commonly aware of how spoliation issues deal impact records management they may be less aware that spoliation is defined as destruction of evidence.  And evidence in this sense is broadly construed. In an interesting and old 18th Century British case (Armory v Delamirie) when a chimney sweep asked a jeweler to evaluate what appeared to be a gemstone he had found and the jeweler refused to produce it at trial, the judge instructed the jury to assume that the stone had the highest possible value. (See Gorelick Marzen, Solum: Destruction of Evidence, 1989).

David Gaynon

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]