Before introducing a state document at trial, it must be “authenticated” pursuant to Rule 40(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.
According to Rule 40(a), “[a]n official record kept within the Commonwealth . . . may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy.”
In a recent appellate case, the Supreme Judicial Court was asked to consider
whether the copy of the docket sheet bearing the embossed seal of the District Court and a stamped signature on the relevant pages, but without any indication of “attestation,” meets the requirements for a self-authenticating document under rule 40 (a).
The SJC concluded that the embossed seal and the stamped signature were not enough. An actual attestation from the appropriate official was necessary.
We have previously explained that an ‘attested’ copy of a document is one which has been examined and compared with the original, with a certificate or memorandum of its correctness, signed by the persons who have examined it. Attestation by an official with custody of the official record provides assurance that the copy submitted is accurate and genuine as compared to the original. To qualify as an ‘attested’ copy, therefore, there must be a written and signed certification that [the record] is a correct copy by the custodian. In other words, an attestation certifies accuracy whereas a seal identifies the source of the document. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
To read the full slip opinion, click the document below.