A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless:
- (1) The document or writing is a negotiable instrument as defined in s. 673.1041, a security as defined in s. 678.1021, or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of money, is not itself a security agreement or lease, and is of a type that is transferred by delivery in the ordinary course of business with any necessary endorsement or assignment.
- (2) A genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.
- (3) It is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
When a Copy is Just as Good as the Original: This statute is a major exception to the "Best Evidence Rule." It recognizes that modern duplicates (like photocopies or scans) are highly reliable, so it allows them to be admitted in place of an original in most situations.
When a Duplicate is NOT Admissible:
A judge will require the original document instead of a duplicate in three specific situations:
- (1) Legally Significant Documents: For certain documents where the original itself has legal power (like a check, a promissory note, or a stock certificate), the original is required.
- (2) Questionable Authenticity: If there is a real, good-faith reason to believe the original was a fake or has been tampered with, a copy is not sufficient.
- (3) Unfairness: If it would simply be unfair to use the duplicate. This typically happens when the copy is of such poor quality (blurry, incomplete, etc.) that important details are obscured and cannot be fairly examined.
If none of these exceptions apply, a duplicate is perfectly admissible.
