Rules of Evidence

Rule 1. Definitions.

The term “evidence” means testimony, documents, records, writings, photographs, recordings, physical objects, digital information, demonstrative material, or other material offered for consideration in determining a fact in a judicial proceeding.

The term “relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the determination of a proceeding more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

The term “witness” means a person who gives testimony in a judicial proceeding.

The term “statement” means a person's oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct intended by that person as an assertion.

The term “declarant” means the person who made a statement.

The term “hearsay” means a statement that the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing and that a party offers to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

The term “writing” means letters, words, numbers, symbols, or their equivalent recorded in any form.

The term “recording” means letters, words, numbers, sounds, images, data, or their equivalent recorded or stored in any medium from which information may be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated.

The term “photograph” means a photographic image or its equivalent stored or reproduced in any medium, including a still image, screenshot, digital image, or video frame.

The term “original” means the writing, recording, photograph, file, or other record itself or a counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who created or issued it. For electronically stored information, an accurate output readable by sight or otherwise perceptible constitutes an original.

The term “duplicate” means a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, digital, or equivalent process that accurately reproduces the original.

The term “judicial authority” means the Military Judge, Assistant Judge Advocate General, Judge Advocate General, or a Deputy Judge Advocate General formally acting for the Judge Advocate General who possesses judicial authority over the evidentiary matter presented.

Rule 2. General Rule of Admissibility.

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant and is not excluded by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, these Rules, another controlling rule, a lawful privilege, or controlling precedent of the Judge Advocate General. Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible.

Admissibility is distinct from the weight ultimately assigned to evidence. The admission of evidence establishes only that the evidence may properly be considered in the proceeding and does not require the finder of fact to accept the evidence as true, accurate, credible, or persuasive.

Evidence shall not be excluded merely because it is unfavorable, disputed, inconsistent with another item of evidence, or capable of supporting competing inferences. Questions concerning credibility and evidentiary weight ordinarily remain for determination after admissibility has been established.

Rule 3. Preliminary Questions Concerning Evidence.

The judicial authority shall determine preliminary questions concerning whether evidence is admissible, whether a witness is qualified, whether a privilege exists, whether evidence has been sufficiently authenticated, and whether a condition necessary to admissibility has been established. In making such a determination, the judicial authority may consider information necessary to resolve the preliminary question except where these Rules expressly provide otherwise.

When the relevance of evidence depends upon whether a particular fact exists, the evidence may be admitted upon or subject to the introduction of sufficient evidence from which the required fact could reasonably be found. If the required foundation is not subsequently established, the judicial authority may strike the evidence and direct that it not be considered.

A preliminary determination admitting evidence does not prevent a later ruling excluding or limiting that evidence when the subsequent record demonstrates that the original foundation was materially incomplete, inaccurate, or legally insufficient.

Rule 4. Limited Admissibility.

When evidence is admissible against one party or for one purpose but inadmissible against another party or for another purpose, the judicial authority shall, upon a timely request or when necessary to prevent substantial unfairness, restrict the evidence to its permissible scope.

The judicial authority may identify the specific purpose for which evidence may be considered and may prohibit its use for another purpose. Admission for a limited purpose does not authorize a party to rely upon the evidence for a proposition outside the scope of the ruling.

Rule 5. Completeness.

When a party introduces all or part of a writing, recorded statement, recording, communication, or other evidentiary material, an adverse party may require introduction at that time of another part that in fairness should be considered with the portion introduced.

A party may not create a materially misleading impression by selectively presenting portions of a statement, conversation, recording, document, or digital communication while withholding immediately contextual material necessary to understand the evidence presented.

The rule of completeness does not make otherwise inadmissible material admissible merely because it concerns the same general subject. The additional material must be necessary to correct a misleading impression, place the admitted portion in its proper context, or permit fair evaluation of the evidence already introduced.

Rule 10. Relevance.

Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence in determining the proceeding more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The tendency need not conclusively establish the fact, and evidence may be relevant even though other evidence is necessary to establish the proposition for which it is offered.

The fact to which the evidence relates must be of consequence to an issue properly before the court. Evidence directed solely toward a matter having no bearing upon a claim, defense, charge, specification, motion, sentence, remedy, credibility determination, or other matter the court is authorized to decide is not relevant.

Rule 11. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence.

The judicial authority may exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the finder of fact, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Unfair prejudice means a substantial risk that evidence will be used for an improper purpose or will produce a decision upon a basis unrelated to the proposition for which the evidence is legitimately admitted. Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial merely because it strongly supports one party, seriously damages another party's position, depicts disturbing conduct relevant to the proceeding, or makes a charged offense appear more serious when that seriousness is itself material to adjudication.

When the danger can reasonably be addressed through limitation rather than exclusion, the judicial authority may restrict the evidence to a particular purpose, portion, issue, or method of presentation.

Rule 12. Character Evidence.

Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible merely to prove that the person acted in accordance with that character or trait on a particular occasion, except where these Rules or controlling law expressly permit such use.

Character evidence may be admissible when character itself constitutes a material issue, when an accused places a pertinent character trait at issue in a manner permitted by law, when evidence concerning the character of another person becomes admissible under a recognized exception, or when character evidence is otherwise specifically authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

When character evidence is admissible, the judicial authority shall determine the permissible method of proof and shall prevent character evidence from becoming a substitute for proof of the conduct actually at issue.

Rule 13. Other Acts.

Evidence that a person committed another crime, wrong, violation, or act is not admissible merely to prove that the person has a bad character and therefore probably acted in the same manner on the occasion being adjudicated.

Such evidence may be admissible for a material non-character purpose, including proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident, when that purpose is genuinely disputed and the evidence otherwise satisfies these Rules. The party offering the evidence shall identify the specific non-character purpose for which admission is sought.

The judicial authority shall determine whether the evidence is sufficiently connected to the permitted purpose and whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers identified in Rule 11. When admitted, the judicial authority may restrict consideration of the evidence to the purpose for which admission was authorized.

Rule 14. Subsequent Remedial Measures.

When measures are taken after an event that would have made an earlier injury, harm, defect, or occurrence less likely, evidence of those subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for warning or instruction.

The evidence may be admitted for another material purpose when genuinely disputed, including ownership, control, feasibility of a precautionary measure, or impeachment where the evidence directly contradicts a material representation. This Rule shall not be used to conceal an admission or statement independently admissible merely because a remedial measure occurred at approximately the same time.

Rule 15. Compromise, Offers, and Plea Discussions.

Evidence of furnishing, promising, offering, accepting, or attempting to negotiate a compromise of a disputed civil claim is not admissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of that claim. Statements made during genuine compromise negotiations concerning the disputed claim are likewise inadmissible for that purpose.

In a military justice proceeding, a withdrawn plea, an offer to enter a plea, and statements made during protected plea discussions are inadmissible against the accused to the extent required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and controlling law.

This Rule does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for a legally distinct purpose for which the protection does not apply, but the judicial authority shall not permit a party to disguise an attempt to prove liability or guilt as an asserted alternative purpose.

Rule 20. Competency of Witnesses.

Every person is competent to testify unless these Rules or controlling law provide otherwise. A witness shall not be disqualified merely because of age, rank, position, relationship to a party, interest in the proceeding, prior misconduct, or a physical or mental limitation when the witness is capable of providing testimony that may properly be received.

Questions concerning a witness's ability to perceive, remember, communicate, or understand the obligation to testify truthfully ordinarily concern the weight and credibility of testimony unless the limitation is so substantial that the witness cannot provide meaningful testimony.

The judicial authority may conduct an examination necessary to determine competency without unnecessarily exposing the finder of fact to information that may itself be inadmissible.

Rule 21. Personal Knowledge.

A witness may testify concerning a matter only when evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of that matter. Personal knowledge may be established through the witness's own testimony or through other evidence demonstrating an adequate opportunity to perceive the event, condition, statement, object, or circumstance described.

A witness shall not present speculation, assumption, rumor, or another person's account as though personally observed. This requirement does not prohibit expert testimony properly admitted under these Rules or testimony concerning an inference rationally based upon the witness's own perception.

Rule 22. Oath or Affirmation.

Before testifying, a witness shall give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. The oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form reasonably calculated to impress upon the witness the duty to provide truthful testimony.

No particular religious language, belief, or ceremony is required. A witness's refusal to use a particular religious form shall not prevent testimony when the witness is willing to make an appropriate affirmation of truthfulness.

Rule 23. Examination of Witnesses.

The judicial authority shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so that testimony may be effectively evaluated, unnecessary consumption of time may be avoided, witnesses may be protected from harassment or improper embarrassment, and the proceeding may remain directed toward the issues being adjudicated.

Cross-examination may address matters raised during direct examination and matters affecting credibility. The judicial authority may permit inquiry beyond the scope of direct examination when doing so would materially assist orderly adjudication.

A witness shall answer a proper question unless an objection is sustained, a privilege is invoked and upheld, or the judicial authority otherwise directs that the witness need not answer. Counsel shall not instruct a witness to refuse to answer merely because the answer may be unfavorable.

Rule 24. Leading Questions.

Leading questions ordinarily should not be used during direct examination except when necessary to develop testimony, address preliminary or undisputed matters, assist a witness who has difficulty communicating, examine a hostile witness, or examine an adverse party or a witness identified with an adverse party.

Leading questions are ordinarily permitted on cross-examination. The judicial authority may restrict their use when the form of questioning materially interferes with reliable testimony or when the circumstances do not justify treating the examination as adverse.

Rule 25. Credibility and Impeachment.

Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness. Impeachment may concern bias, interest, motive, perception, memory, inconsistency, character for truthfulness when admissible, or another matter recognized by these Rules as bearing upon credibility.

A witness may be questioned concerning a prior statement materially inconsistent with the witness's testimony. Before extrinsic evidence of the inconsistent statement is admitted, the witness shall ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party shall have an opportunity to examine the witness concerning it.

Impeachment shall not be used as a pretext for placing otherwise inadmissible substantive evidence before the finder of fact. Evidence admitted solely for impeachment may be considered only for the credibility purpose for which it was admitted.

Rule 26. Sequestration of Witnesses.

At the request of a party, or upon the judicial authority's own determination when necessary to protect the integrity of testimony, witnesses may be excluded from the hearing or trial so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses before giving their own testimony.

An order of sequestration may prohibit a witness from reviewing testimony, recordings, transcripts, summaries, messages, or reports concerning testimony given during the proceeding when such access would defeat the purpose of sequestration.

A person whose presence is legally required, a party who is a natural person, an authorized representative whose presence is necessary to a party's presentation, and a person whose presence is otherwise required by controlling law shall not be excluded merely because another party requests sequestration.

Rule 30. Lay Opinion Testimony.

A witness who is not testifying as an expert may express an opinion or inference when it is rationally based upon the witness's perception, helpful to understanding the witness's testimony or determining a fact in issue, and not based upon scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge requiring qualification as an expert.

A lay witness may describe conclusions ordinarily drawn from direct observation when requiring the witness to separate every underlying perception would make the testimony less understandable. The witness may not use lay opinion testimony to evade the requirements governing expert testimony.

Rule 31. Expert Witnesses.

A witness may testify as an expert when qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and when the expert's specialized knowledge will assist the finder of fact in understanding evidence or determining a fact in issue.

Expert testimony shall be based upon sufficient facts or data and shall result from reliable principles, methods, or specialized reasoning appropriately applied to the facts of the proceeding. The proponent bears the burden of establishing a sufficient foundation for admission of the expert testimony.

The judicial authority shall determine whether the witness possesses qualifications relevant to the particular subject upon which the witness proposes to testify. Qualification as an expert in one field does not establish expertise concerning every technical or specialized subject.

Rule 32. Bases of Expert Opinion.

An expert may base an opinion upon facts or data personally observed or made known to the expert before or during the proceeding. The facts or data need not themselves be independently admissible when experts in the relevant field would reasonably rely upon that type of information in forming an opinion.

When otherwise inadmissible information forms part of the basis of an expert opinion, the information shall not be disclosed to the finder of fact merely because the expert considered it. Disclosure may be permitted when its value in explaining and evaluating the expert's opinion substantially outweighs the danger that the information will be improperly considered for its truth.

An expert may state an opinion without first disclosing every underlying fact or datum, but the expert may be required to disclose the basis of the opinion on cross-examination.

Rule 33. Ultimate Issues and Legal Conclusions.

An opinion is not objectionable merely because it addresses an ultimate factual issue in the proceeding. A witness may not, however, substitute the witness's judgment for the judicial authority by instructing the court what law governs, declaring that a legal standard has been satisfied without a permissible factual basis, or giving an opinion that merely tells the finder of fact what legal result to reach.

An expert may explain specialized practices, terminology, procedures, technical standards, or factual conclusions within the expert's field when relevant. The judicial authority remains responsible for determining the governing law and instructing the finder of fact concerning legal standards.

Rule 40. General Rule of Privilege.

A person may refuse to disclose, and may prevent another person from disclosing, information protected by a privilege recognized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, these Rules, controlling law, or binding precedent of the Judge Advocate General.

A privilege shall be applied according to the relationship and communication it protects. The person asserting privilege bears the responsibility of identifying the privilege with sufficient specificity to permit judicial determination without unnecessarily disclosing the protected substance.

When necessary to determine whether a privilege applies, the judicial authority may review disputed material in camera. Material submitted for such review shall remain restricted until the judicial authority determines the extent to which disclosure is permitted.

Rule 41. Attorney-Client Privilege.

A client may refuse to disclose, and may prevent another person from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and military lawyer or other authorized legal counsel when the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or representation.

The privilege extends to communications reasonably necessary to facilitate the professional relationship, including communications involving persons assisting counsel when their involvement is necessary to the representation. The privilege belongs to the client and is not defeated merely because counsel serves within the military.

The privilege does not protect a communication merely because it was made to a lawyer. Communications unrelated to legal advice or representation, communications not intended to remain confidential, and communications falling within an exception recognized by controlling law are not protected merely by the professional status of the recipient.

Rule 42. Waiver of Privilege.

A person entitled to claim a privilege may waive it expressly or through voluntary disclosure inconsistent with continued confidentiality. The judicial authority shall determine the scope of waiver according to the communication disclosed, circumstances of disclosure, and fairness necessary to prevent selective use of privileged material.

An inadvertent disclosure does not automatically waive privilege. In determining the effect of an inadvertent disclosure, the judicial authority may consider the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, promptness of corrective action, extent of disclosure, and whether treating the disclosure as waiver would materially undermine the privilege or unfairly prejudice another party.

A person may not intentionally disclose a favorable portion of a privileged communication while invoking the privilege to prevent examination of additional portions necessary to understand the disclosed communication fairly.

Rule 50. Hearsay.

Hearsay is inadmissible unless these Rules, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or controlling law provides for its admission. A statement is hearsay when it was made outside the current testimony and is offered to establish the truth of what the statement asserts.

A statement is not hearsay merely because it was made outside the courtroom. When a statement is offered to prove that it was made, to show its effect upon a person who heard or received it, to explain subsequent conduct, to establish notice, or for another relevant purpose that does not depend upon the statement being true, the statement is not hearsay for that use.

When a statement has both a permissible non-hearsay use and an impermissible hearsay use, the judicial authority may admit the statement for the permissible purpose and limit the manner in which it may be considered.

Rule 51. Prior Statements of a Witness.

A prior statement by a witness who testifies and is subject to examination concerning the statement may be admitted for its truth when the statement is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony and was made under oath in a judicial, administrative, deposition, or comparable formal proceeding; when the statement is consistent with present testimony and is offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, improper influence, or improper motive; or when the statement identifies a person whom the witness previously perceived under circumstances providing sufficient reliability.

A prior statement that does not qualify for substantive use may nevertheless be admissible for impeachment when permitted by Rule 25. The judicial authority shall distinguish between substantive admission and use solely for credibility.

Rule 52. Statement of an Opposing Party.

A statement offered against an opposing party is not excluded as hearsay when it was made by that party in an individual or representative capacity, was adopted or believed to be true by that party, was made by a person authorized by that party to speak concerning the subject, or was made by an agent or employee concerning a matter within the scope of that relationship while the relationship existed.

A statement made by one participant in a joint unlawful undertaking may be admitted against another participant when the proponent establishes the relationship required by controlling law and demonstrates that the statement was made during and in furtherance of the undertaking.

The existence of an agency, authorization, or joint undertaking shall not be established solely by the statement whose admissibility depends upon that relationship.

Rule 53. Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance.

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition may be admitted when made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter under circumstances providing substantial assurance that there was little opportunity for reflective fabrication.

A statement relating to a startling event or condition may be admitted when made while the declarant remained under the stress or excitement caused by that event or condition. The judicial authority shall consider the nature of the event, passage of time, declarant's condition, intervening circumstances, and relationship between the statement and event in determining whether the required condition existed.

Rule 54. Then-Existing Condition.

A statement concerning the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, physical condition, intent, plan, motive, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health may be admitted when that condition is material to the proceeding.

A statement of memory or belief offered to prove the historical fact remembered or believed is not admissible under this Rule merely because it describes the declarant's state of mind. The exception concerns the condition existing when the statement was made rather than an unrestricted account of past events.

Rule 55. Statements for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.

A statement made for and reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment may be admitted when it describes medical history, past or present symptoms or sensations, their inception, or their general cause to the extent reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

The judicial authority shall consider the purpose for which the statement was made and whether the information asserted was reasonably connected to obtaining diagnosis or treatment. A statement does not become admissible in its entirety merely because it was made to medical personnel.

Rule 56. Recorded Recollection.

When a witness once knew about a matter but cannot recall it sufficiently to testify fully and accurately, a record concerning that matter may be used when the record was made or adopted by the witness while the matter was fresh in the witness's memory and accurately reflected the witness's knowledge at that time.

The record may be read into evidence. The record itself may be received as an exhibit when offered by an adverse party or when another rule independently permits its admission.

Rule 57. Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.

A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis may be admitted when it was made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge; was maintained in the course of a regularly conducted activity; making the record was a regular practice of that activity; and those conditions are established through a qualified witness, certification, or another authorized method.

A record shall not be admitted under this Rule when the source of information, method of preparation, circumstances of creation, or another material circumstance demonstrates a lack of trustworthiness. Creation by a government, military, commercial, or administrative system does not by itself establish reliability.

Rule 58. Public and Official Records.

A record setting out the activities of a public office, matters observed pursuant to a legal duty to report, or factual findings resulting from an authorized investigation may be admitted when the record was created within the lawful functions of that office and circumstances do not demonstrate a material lack of trustworthiness.

In a criminal or military justice proceeding, investigative or law-enforcement records offered against an accused remain subject to limitations imposed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, confrontation requirements, and controlling law. This Rule shall not be used to replace live testimony when governing law requires the declarant to be subject to confrontation.

Rule 59. Former Testimony.

Testimony given as a witness at a prior trial, hearing, deposition, or comparable proceeding may be admitted when the declarant is unavailable and the party against whom the testimony is now offered previously had an opportunity and substantially similar motive to develop the testimony through direct, cross, or redirect examination.

The judicial authority shall determine whether the earlier opportunity was meaningful in light of the issues, interests, and procedural posture existing when the testimony was given. Mere physical presence at an earlier proceeding does not establish an adequate opportunity and motive to examine the witness.

Rule 60. Unavailable Declarants.

A declarant is unavailable when exempted from testifying because of privilege, refusing to testify despite a lawful order, lacking sufficient memory concerning the subject, being unable to testify because of death or a material physical or mental condition, or being absent when the proponent has made reasonable lawful efforts to secure attendance.

A party shall not rely upon an unavailability exception when that party wrongfully caused the declarant's absence for the purpose of preventing testimony. Unavailability does not itself make every statement of the declarant admissible; the statement must satisfy a specific rule permitting its admission.

Rule 70. Requirement of Authentication.

To admit an item of evidence, the proponent shall produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it to be. Authentication concerns identity and genuineness and does not by itself establish that the contents are true, accurate in every respect, or entitled to any particular evidentiary weight.

Authentication may be established through testimony of a witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics, comparison with an authenticated specimen, evidence concerning a process or system, metadata, hash values, chain of custody, account or device information, or another method capable of establishing the claimed identity of the evidence.

The judicial authority shall consider the nature of the evidence and the possibility of alteration, fabrication, substitution, or misidentification when determining whether the authentication threshold has been satisfied.

Rule 71. Digital Evidence.

Digital evidence may be authenticated through evidence establishing its source, creation, transmission, storage, retrieval, integrity, or association with a person, account, device, system, or event. No single method of authentication is required when the combined circumstances sufficiently establish that the evidence is what the proponent claims.

A username, display name, profile image, account label, or claimed sender appearing upon a message or screenshot does not by itself conclusively establish authorship. Authorship may be established through surrounding communications, account control, distinctive content, corroborating testimony, technical records, metadata, admission, device evidence, or other circumstances connecting the communication to the alleged author.

Evidence that a digital item could theoretically have been altered does not automatically require exclusion. The judicial authority shall determine whether sufficient evidence of authenticity and integrity has been presented, while remaining disputes concerning possible alteration ordinarily affect evidentiary weight unless the dispute defeats the foundation necessary for admission.

Rule 72. Photographs, Video, and Audio Recordings.

A photograph, video, or audio recording may be authenticated by a witness with knowledge that it fairly represents what it is claimed to depict or by evidence establishing the reliability of the process, device, system, or source that produced the recording.

A recording need not be perfect or complete to be admissible. Missing portions, reduced quality, compression, cropping, enhancement, or other processing shall be considered in determining authenticity, completeness, and weight. A materially altered recording shall not be represented as an unaltered original.

When enhancement or processing materially affects the presentation of evidence, the proponent shall disclose the nature of the material processing sufficiently to permit evaluation of whether the resulting evidence accurately represents the underlying information.

Rule 73. Electronic Communications.

Messages, emails, Discord communications, direct messages, logs, and comparable electronic communications may be authenticated through account information, testimony, contextual content, metadata, corroborating communications, technical records, or other evidence connecting the communication to its asserted source.

A screenshot may establish the appearance of a communication at a particular time but does not automatically establish authorship, completeness, or authenticity of the underlying conversation. The judicial authority may require additional foundation when authorship, manipulation, omitted context, or source is genuinely disputed.

Rule 80. Original Evidence.

When a party seeks to prove the contents of a writing, recording, photograph, or digital record, the original is ordinarily required unless these Rules permit a duplicate or other evidence of the contents.

For electronically stored information, an accurate readable output or accurate reproduction of the stored information may constitute an original. The requirement of an original does not demand production of the physical storage device merely because information was stored electronically.

Rule 81. Duplicates.

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised concerning the authenticity of the original or circumstances make admission of the duplicate materially unfair.

The mere existence of an original does not make a reliable duplicate inadmissible. A party challenging a duplicate shall identify a genuine issue concerning authenticity, alteration, completeness, or another circumstance materially affecting whether the duplicate accurately represents the original.

Rule 82. Other Evidence of Contents.

When an original has been lost or destroyed without bad faith by the proponent, cannot reasonably be obtained through available judicial process, is possessed by an opposing party who fails to produce it after appropriate notice, or concerns a collateral matter for which production of the original would be unnecessary, other reliable evidence of its contents may be admitted.

A party shall not obtain the benefit of this Rule by knowingly and willfully destroying, concealing, or rendering unavailable an original for the purpose of preventing examination of that evidence. The judicial authority may exclude secondary evidence, draw an inference authorized by controlling law, impose sanctions, refer misconduct, or take another specifically authorized judicial action when evidence was intentionally made unavailable.

Rule 83. Summaries of Voluminous Evidence.

A party may use a summary, chart, calculation, or compilation to prove the contents of voluminous writings, recordings, records, or data that cannot conveniently be examined in court, provided that the underlying material is itself admissible and has been made reasonably available for examination by the opposing party.

The summary shall accurately reflect the underlying material and shall identify the method by which it was prepared. The judicial authority may require production of the underlying material or additional foundation necessary to evaluate the accuracy of the summary.

Rule 90. Objections.

A party seeking exclusion of evidence shall make a timely objection or motion to strike and shall state the specific ground unless the ground is apparent from context. An objection should be made when the basis becomes reasonably apparent and before the challenged evidence is relied upon to the extent practicable.

An objection preserves the evidentiary question actually presented to the judicial authority. A party may not ordinarily assert one specific ground before the Military Judge and later treat a materially different ground as though it had been presented and decided.

The judicial authority shall rule upon an objection by sustaining it, overruling it, reserving ruling when necessary, or directing additional foundation before ruling. Argument concerning an objection shall be conducted as directed by the judicial authority and shall not be used to present inadmissible factual assertions to the finder of fact.

Rule 91. Offers of Proof.

When evidence is excluded, the party offering it may preserve the substance of the proposed evidence through an offer of proof unless its substance is already apparent from the context. The offer shall identify the evidence, the purpose for which it was offered, and the basis asserted for admissibility.

The judicial authority may require the offer to be made outside the presence of the finder of fact and may permit testimony, a written proffer, the excluded exhibit, or another reliable method of preserving the issue.

An offer of proof does not make excluded evidence part of the evidence considered on the merits. It preserves the material for review of the evidentiary ruling.

Rule 92. Motions in Limine.

A party may request an advance evidentiary ruling through a Motion in Limine identifying the evidence expected to arise, the ruling requested, the evidentiary rule implicated, and the circumstances necessary for the judicial authority to determine the issue before presentation of the evidence.

The judicial authority may grant the motion, deny it, grant it in part and deny it in part, or reserve ruling until the evidentiary context is sufficiently developed. A pretrial ruling may be reconsidered when the evidence presented at trial materially differs from the foundation upon which the original ruling was based.

A party shall not intentionally present evidence to the finder of fact in violation of an order in limine for the purpose of forcing reconsideration after the prohibited information has already been disclosed.

Rule 93. Evidence Outside the Presence of the Finder of Fact.

Proceedings concerning admissibility may be conducted outside the presence of the finder of fact when necessary to prevent exposure to evidence that may ultimately be excluded, determine a privilege, consider the voluntariness or legality of a statement, evaluate sensitive material, or resolve another evidentiary question that cannot fairly be litigated in the presence of the finder of fact.

Evidence considered solely for determining admissibility does not thereby become evidence upon the merits. If the evidence is admitted, it shall be presented or incorporated into the merits record in the manner directed by the judicial authority.

Rule 94. Evidentiary Error.

An evidentiary ruling shall not require reversal, vacatur, a new trial, or other disturbance of a judgment merely because the ruling was erroneous. The reviewing judicial authority shall consider whether the error materially affected a substantial right, finding, sentence, judgment, or other determination challenged on review.

When evidence was improperly admitted, the reviewing authority shall consider the role of that evidence in the proceeding and the remaining lawful record. When evidence was improperly excluded, the reviewing authority shall consider the substance preserved through an offer of proof and whether exclusion materially affected the party's ability to present the matter being adjudicated.

An error affecting only a matter immaterial to the judgment shall not independently require reversal. An evidentiary error that materially affected the legality or reliability of the judgment remains subject to the appellate and final-review authority established by the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Rule 100. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts.

The judicial authority may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the jurisdiction relevant to the proceeding or can be accurately and readily determined from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

A party may request judicial notice by identifying the fact and providing information sufficient to establish that the requirements of this Rule are satisfied. The opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to contest whether notice is proper and, when material, the effect of the noticed fact.

Judicial notice shall not be used to resolve genuinely disputed evidence merely because one party considers its position obvious. A fact subject to reasonable factual dispute shall be established through evidence rather than judicial notice.

Rule 101. Judicial Notice of Law and Official Materials.

The judicial authority may take judicial notice of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, these Rules, the Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Code of Professional Conduct, published precedent of the Judge Advocate General, official orders applicable to the proceeding, and other controlling legal authority whose authenticity can be accurately established.

Judicial notice of an official document establishes the existence and contents of the authentic document but does not necessarily establish the truth of every factual assertion contained within it. The judicial authority shall distinguish between noticing that an official action or statement occurred and accepting a disputed factual assertion contained in the document.

Rule 102. Evidentiary Record on Review.

An Assistant Judge Advocate General reviewing an evidentiary ruling shall determine the issue from the record properly developed before the Military Judge and the materials properly preserved for appellate review. Appellate review shall not ordinarily convert new factual material into evidence that was never presented to the Military Judge.

The Judge Advocate General, upon granting certiorari concerning an evidentiary question, shall review the question within the scope of the grant and the record properly before the Judge Advocate General under the Rules of Practice and Procedure. When additional factual development is necessary to resolve the controlling legal question, the Judge Advocate General may remand the identified matter for that purpose.

Rule 103. Controlling Interpretation.

A published merits holding of the Judge Advocate General interpreting these Rules is binding upon every Military Judge and Assistant Judge Advocate General. A lower judicial authority shall apply that interpretation to subsequent proceedings governed by the same Rule unless the holding has been overruled, superseded by amendment, or displaced by controlling law.

A denial of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari does not constitute approval or disapproval of an evidentiary ruling below and shall not be cited as precedent concerning the meaning of these Rules.

Rule 104. Amendment and Historical Versions.

An amendment to these Rules shall identify the provision amended, repealed, added, or redesignated and shall be associated with the resulting version of the Rules of Evidence. Amendment shall not silently replace the historical text applicable to earlier proceedings.

Prior versions shall remain identifiable when necessary to determine the evidentiary rules governing a prior proceeding. Publication or technical deployment of a proposed amendment does not itself place that amendment into force.

Rule 105. Effective Status.

These Rules shall not govern judicial proceedings while designated Pending Approval or Proposed. Upon lawful approval, the official Rules of Evidence shall be designated In Force and the version placed into effect shall be recorded.

No website publication, database entry, technical deployment, or administrative action shall represent these Rules as adopted before approval by the authority empowered to place them into force.