What is required for real or documentary evidence to be admitted in court?

What is required for real or documentary evidence to be admitted in court?

• A. sworn affidavit
• B. arrest warrant
• C. proper unbroken chain of custody
• D. officer's testimony

Answer: (C)

The main concept is proving the authenticity and integrity of real or documentary evidence through an unbroken chain of custody. This means records showing every person who handled the item, when, where it was stored, and how it was transferred or preserved from the moment it was collected to the moment it is presented in court. A continuous, documented history protects against tampering or substitution and helps the court trust that the item is the same one that was originally gathered. If any link in that chain is missing or unclear, the evidence can be challenged or excluded because its reliability is in doubt. The other options don’t establish this ongoing control: a sworn affidavit attests to statements, not the physical item’s history; an arrest warrant concerns the legality of the seizure, not the item’s maintained integrity; and an officer’s testimony describes events but doesn’t by itself prove that the evidence remained unaltered and properly identified throughout the process.

The main concept is proving the authenticity and integrity of real or documentary evidence through an unbroken chain of custody. This means records showing every person who handled the item, when, where it was stored, and how it was transferred or preserved from the moment it was collected to the moment it is presented in court. A continuous, documented history protects against tampering or substitution and helps the court trust that the item is the same one that was originally gathered.

If any link in that chain is missing or unclear, the evidence can be challenged or excluded because its reliability is in doubt. The other options don’t establish this ongoing control: a sworn affidavit attests to statements, not the physical item’s history; an arrest warrant concerns the legality of the seizure, not the item’s maintained integrity; and an officer’s testimony describes events but doesn’t by itself prove that the evidence remained unaltered and properly identified throughout the process.