Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 909 — EVIDENCE — AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Wis. Stat. § 909.01

General provision

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
909.01909.01 General provision. The requirements of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
909.01 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R329 (1973); 1975 c. 41.
909.01 AnnotationUnauthenticated ledger and signature cards bearing the entry “P.O.D. to (plaintiff)” were not competent evidence of the decedent’s intent to make a savings and loan account payable on death to the plaintiff. Bruckner v. Prairie Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 81 Wis. 2d 215, 260 N.W.2d 256 (1977).
909.01 AnnotationBefore a demonstrative videotape may be admitted, there must be a foundation that it is a fair and accurate reproduction of what was seen and that it was produced under conditions reasonably similar to conditions of the actual event. Even with the foundation established, the evidence may be excluded on a finding that its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. State v. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3737.
909.01 AnnotationComputer-generated animation used as a demonstrative exhibit to show the scene and events of an alleged crime is not exempt from longstanding foundation requirements. Demonstrative computer-generated animation should be introduced in conjunction with the witness’s testimony it seeks to clarify, as any diagram or photo intended to clarify a lay witness’s testimony would be introduced. In this case, the animation was testified to by the animator and not by any witness and was nothing more than bits and pieces from each of the state’s witnesses that, when mixed together, effectively represented the animator’s own version of what occurred at the time and place in question. State v. Denton, 2009 WI App 78, 319 Wis. 2d 718, 768 N.W.2d 250, 07-2825.
909.01 AnnotationA court should not afford a presumption of accuracy to a particular electronic monitoring device (EMD) report or EMD until the state has put forth evidence regarding the installation of the specific device and testimony as to its accuracy and reliability by a Department of Corrections employee familiar with its operation. Consequently, the state is permitted to authenticate and lay a foundation for an EMD report by providing testimony describing the electronic monitoring system and the process by which the daily summary reports are generated and showing that this process produces an accurate result. State v. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, 336 Wis. 2d 478, 799 N.W.2d 865, 09-1351.
909.01 AnnotationAuthentication does not require proving that the documents are incontrovertibly what they purport to be, but rather authentication requires presenting evidence sufficient to support a finding that the documents are what they purport to be. Horak v. Building Services Industrial Sales Co., 2012 WI App 54, 341 Wis. 2d 403, 815 N.W.2d 400, 11-0414.
909.01 AnnotationAuthentication can be done through circumstantial evidence. State v. Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62, 371 Wis. 2d 452, 885 N.W.2d 394, 15-0968.
909.01 AnnotationText message authentication is a low standard that can be achieved with the sort of testimonial evidence of a witness with knowledge and circumstantial evidence that was presented in this case. Text and other electronic messages do not require new rules on authentication. State v. Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62, 371 Wis. 2d 452, 885 N.W.2d 394, 15-0968.
909.01 AnnotationIn this case, the state’s authentication obligation was to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the records produced by the state were in fact Fitbit’s records associated with a particular Fitbit device. The circuit court’s obligation was not to scrutinize every line of data within the given record and decide whether each line was an accurate representation of the facts. Rather, once the circuit court concluded the factfinder could find that the records were what their proponent claimed them to be, the credibility and weight ascribed to those records were questions left to the finder of fact. State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68, 398 Wis. 2d 1, 961 N.W.2d 314, 19-1404.
909.01 AnnotationVirtual DNA: Whole Device Authentication. O’Shea. Wis. Law. July/Aug. 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Kandutsch
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kandutsch (2011) wis · cites it 14× “" Wis. Stat. § 909.01 . The court of appeals held that the State presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the report, because Agents Klarkowski and Williams testified that the DOC has used the program since 1987, relies on it to supervise about 2,000 people on any given…”
State v. Giacomantonio (2016) wisctapp · cites it 8× “He concedes that we must apply Wisconsin law, namely Wis. Stat. §§ 909.01 and 909.015. Nevertheless, he points to law in other jurisdictions that "requires more than mere confirmation that the number or address belonged to a particular person" when authenticating electronic…”
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thomas P. Wuensch (2018) wis · cites it 7× “See Wis. Stat. §§ 909.01 , 909.015(1). This remains as true in the foreclosure context as it is in all others.”
Nischke v. Farmers & Merchants Bank & Trust (1994) wisctapp · cites it 8× “[2] A prerequisite to the admissibility of all evidence is that it meet the authentication requirements of § 909.01, STATS. Nelson v. Zeimetz, 150 Wis.”
State v. Smith (2005) wis · cites it 4× “§ 909.01 provides, "The requirements of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
Gaethke v. Pozder (2017) wisctapp “§ 909.01 provides: "The requirements of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
Wosinski v. Advance Cast Stone Co. (2017) wisctapp · cites it 2× “However, that is not an argument related to admission, but instead is a weight and credibility issue that is resolved by the fact-finder after weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses who testified.”
Dow Family, LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (2013) wisctapp · cites it 4× “" Wis. Stat. § 909.01 . PHH has not submitted evidence sufficient to support a finding that the copy of the note is what PHH claims — namely, a true and correct copy of an original note in PHH's possession.”
State v. Denton (2009) wisctapp · cites it 4× “See Wis. Stat. §§ 909.01 and 909.015 9 ; see also 2 Kenneth S.”
State v. Peterson (1998) wisctapp · cites it 3× “2d 725, 739 (1979), the court held that for still photographs, the photographer's testimony that the pictures accurately portray what they purport to portray is a sufficient foundation under §§ 909.01 and 909.015(1), STATS. 4 *456 Other jurisdictions have routinely held motion…”
Flejter v. Estate of Flejter Ex Rel. Migacz (2000) wisctapp · cites it 4× “§ 909.01 reads: "The requirements of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
State v. Baldwin (2010) wisctapp · cites it 2× “§ 909.01 provides: "General provision. The requirements of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.