Under Rule 1003, duplicates may be admitted as evidence of the original’s contents unless what is true?

• A. Duplicates automatically replace the original.
• B. Duplicates are never admissible.
• C. Duplicates may be admitted as evidence of the original's contents unless a genuine question exists about authenticity or fairness.
• D. Duplicates must be signed by the author.

Answer: (C)

Duplicates may be admitted to prove the contents of the original; the important limit is that this is allowed unless a genuine question exists about authenticity or fairness. In practice, a copy or photocopy can stand in for the original to show what the original says, which helps keep the process efficient and avoids handling the fragile original. But if there’s any doubt that the duplicate accurately reflects the original—for example, concerns about tampering, misidentification, or missing parts that could affect the truth of the contents—the court may require the original or exclude the duplicate, because authenticity or fairness is at issue. The other statements aren’t correct because duplicates do not automatically replace the original, duplicates are not categorically inadmissible, and there’s no requirement that a duplicate be signed by the author for admissibility.