Motion challenging the admissibility of computer-generated evidence

Motion challenging the admissibility of computer-generated evidence

If the evidence to be used against the defendant includes documents that were generated from a computer, counsel should consider moving for suppression of this evidence before trial. The evidence can be attacked as hearsay or lacking in authenticity, or as being not the best evidence or unduly prejudicial. Admission of computer-generated evidence gives the trial court broad discretion in ruling on its admissibility.FN48 Therefore, whether a proper foundation has been established for computer-generated evidence is primarily a question addressed to sound discretion of trial court.FN49

The advantage of a pretrial motion contesting this issue is the increased time that it allows for the court to consider what is often a difficult and technical motion. In addition, a motion made at the time of trial without prior notice to the court may be deemed a last-minute ploy to delay trial or distract the jury. Counsel may want to incorporate this motion in a motion in limine.FN50 However, testimony on the acceptability, accuracy, maintenance and reliability of a bank's computer hardware and software, as well as testimony from the hardware and software designers, may not be required to demonstrate "trustworthiness" of computer-generated evidence in order to lay a foundation for its admission under a business records exception to hearsay rule, especially where the data consists of the retrieval of automatic inputs rather than computations based on manual entries.FN51

Proper analysis for introduction of computer generated evidence is a balancing test as to whether such evidence, though relevant, had probative value that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.FN52