3. Should the photograph be admitted over the defendant's objection?

The best evidence rule is more accurately called the «original document rule.» Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 1002 requires the following: In proving the terms of a writing (recording, photograph, or X-ray), where the terms are material, the original writing must be produced. Secondary evidence of the writing, such as oral testimony regarding the writing's contents, is permitted only after it has been shown that the original is unavailable for some reason other than serious misconduct of the proponent. If the proponent cannot produce the original writing or recording in court, he may offer secondary evidence of its contents in the form of copies, notes, or oral testimony about the contents of the original if a satisfactory explanation is given for the non-production of the original.

A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

C is correct. The photograph should be admitted, despite the defendant's objection, because it is relevant to the issue of whether the plaintiff's injuries were severe, a fact that the defendant has contested. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to show the severity of his injuries by introducing the photograph. The evidence relates directly to the appropriate amount of damages. Moreover, it is not in violation of the best evidence rule, as further explained below.

A is incorrect. The plaintiff successfully established that the original videotape cannot be produced, and the photograph was taken directly from the original tape. As such, the photograph would either be considered a duplicate or part of the original itself. See Fed. R. Evid. 1001(c), (d). Moreover, the plaintiff is under no obligation to show the unavailability of other duplicates before introducing the photograph.

B is incorrect. A showing was made that the original videotape was erased, so it cannot be produced. Even if a duplicate were available, there is no requirement that a party offering a duplicate must show the unavailability of other duplicates. Moreover, FRE 1001(d) provides that «[a]n ‘original' of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it.» Under this definition, if the photograph being offered is found to be a print from the negative of the videotape, then it is itself an «original» and no showing of unavailability is required.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the photograph should be admitted, it is not because a photograph establishing a disputed fact cannot be excluded as prejudicial. FRE 403 allows a trial judge to exercise discretion in excluding relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. So, even though photographs are often useful evidence in establishing disputed facts, this alone does not render it automatically admissible. It is admissible because its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is not otherwise violative of the FRE.