I know it is not unusual for a check to be damaged in processing, and a copy to be routed through the clearing/return channels in it's stead. But now I have a neighboring county telling me they need an original to prosecute, and that a copy will get thrown out of court. I'm fairly certain that they are wrong, but I can't find a cite to back that up. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

This is governed by the law of evidence in the state where the prosecution would take place. Most states allow for use of copies if a proper foundation can be laid. A copy does raise evidentiary issues any good defense lawyer would jump on but it is not insurmountable. Bottom line, original evidence is best ("best evidence rule") but copies can be admitted if the proper steps are followed.

The Federal Rules of Evidence, Article X, Rule 1003 Admissibility of Duplicates states A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

I had an attorney tell me once it shouldn't be difficult to have a "true and correct" copy submitted in place of an original.

I have worked on a lot of check fraud cases and the police always tell me to make sure I have the original checks. So I pull the checks and put them in the case file and 99% of the time that is where they stay. We do item imaging and the images can be made larger than the original and are often easier to read.

JacFSB

As a financial crime detective in CA in the 1980's, I ran into this problem frequently because original items were lost or misplaced. We lost or misplaced them, too. Imaging technology was in a state of infancy and most institutions didn't image items as they do now. Because imaging was a relatively new technology, getting a court to admit an image of a document instead of the original one was difficult. No longer -- and Mary Beth may want to add to this thread because it can get complicated.

Generally, a copy of an original document may be admitted into evidence if it is shown that it is a true and correct copy of the original -- and the original is unavailable. The document must have been legally acquired in the course of normal business and it can only be admitted by the witness who was involved in the transaction -- or by the institution's designated custodian of records. No copy of an original document may be used for handwriting or fingerprint comparison or identification purposes.

In my experience, a photocopy of an original document is more difficult to get admitted in many instances than an imaged one. Most courts have acknowledged that an imaged document is the "next best evidence" if the original is unavailable -- so check with your local jurisdiction for its admissibility guidelines.

I did not chime into this one because, as judges often say: "It has been asked and answered."

Thank you all for your answers. And an extra thanks to Dana, for admitting that bankers are not the only ones who lose or misplace things.