The Texas Evidence Navigator
Pick the thing you are holding. Each card shows what it is, which gates bear hardest under the Texas book — after the Rule 101 hierarchy check that opens every analysis — the loaded units that govern, and the mistakes the reported fights keep repeating. No card weighs your facts, picks your route, or predicts a ruling; the criminal-statute lanes are named and routed to counsel, never operationalized.
Documents and records
Business records
Records an organization keeps in its ordinary operation — the workhorse exhibit, and the one Texas gives a paper foundation.
- ▸What an organization recorded about an event or account
- ▸Charges, payments, and course of dealing
- ▸Internal knowledge at a point in time
Hearsay
The exception's spine condition is the rule's own clause — and the foundation can arrive by live witness OR by the Rule 902(10) affidavit route.
“the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity”
The paper foundation
Both proof modes sit in one clause of the rule.
“all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by an affidavit or unsworn declaration that complies with Rule 902(10)”
The 14-day clock
The affidavit route has a service deadline the rule states itself.
“The proponent of a record must serve the record and the accompanying affidavit on each other party to the case at least 14 days before trial.”
The recurring mistakes
- · Serving the affidavit inside 14 days and hoping
- · An affiant with no familiarity with how the records are kept
- · Treating embedded third-party statements as covered by the wrapper's foundation
Medical records and bills
Treatment records and their charges — where Texas splits one pile of paper into four different legal questions.
- ▸What treatment was provided and when
- ▸What was charged
- ▸Reasonableness and necessity — through the § 18.001 lane
The § 18.001 lane
The affidavit proves reasonableness and necessity — the statute says exactly what it supports.
“is sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact by judge or jury that the amount charged was reasonable or that the service was necessary”
Causation — never in the affidavit
The statute draws this line itself.
“The affidavit is not evidence of and does not support a finding of the causation element of the cause of action that is the basis for the civil action.”
Privilege
Physician and mental-health privileges are Evidence Rules of their own, and privilege never switches off.
“The rules on privilege apply to all stages of a case or proceeding.”
The recurring mistakes
- · Offering the 18.001 affidavit as causation proof
- · Missing the statute's earlier-of service deadline
- · Ignoring the counteraffidavit's own requirements
Bank and financial records
Statements, ledgers, and transaction histories — business records with adopted-records questions riding inside.
- ▸Payments made and received
- ▸Balances and transfers at points in time
- ▸The paper trail behind a dispute
Hearsay
The regular-course condition is the exception's spine.
“the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity”
Authentication
The finding-support standard governs; the 902(10) route can carry both foundations on paper.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Summaries
Volume invites Rule 1006 — with its inspection price.
“must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place”
The recurring mistakes
- · A summary whose underlying statements were never made available
- · Third-party records inside the production treated as the producer's own
- · Charts that calculate more than the records say
Public records
Records of public offices — with a civil clause built for factual findings and a criminal carve-out the rule states itself.
- ▸What a public office recorded, observed, or found
- ▸Factual findings from an authorized investigation — in civil cases
Hearsay
The civil factual-findings clause is the workhorse.
“in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation”
The criminal boundary
The rule carves law-enforcement observations out of criminal cases in its own words.
“but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel”
Original contents
Certified copies of public records have their own Article X route.
The recurring mistakes
- · Reading one admissible wrapper over every statement inside
- · Skipping the trustworthiness clause the opponent can invoke
- · Uncertified printouts where a certified copy was one request away
Police reports in civil cases
The crash or incident report offered in a CIVIL case — a public-records wrapper full of statement layers that each need their own route.
- ▸That an investigation occurred and what it found
- ▸Scene facts an officer observed and recorded
Hearsay — the wrapper
The civil clause can carry the report itself.
“in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation”
Hearsay — the layers
A witness's words inside the report are a second layer with no route of their own.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
Completeness
An excerpt invites the remainder — Rules 106 and 107 are the other side's tools too.
The recurring mistakes
- · Treating the report as one admissible block
- · Reading a bystander's statement through the officer's pen
- · Forgetting the report's opinions have their own gates
Contracts and signed writings
The agreement itself — where Article X actually means what people think it means everywhere else.
- ▸The terms the parties signed
- ▸Execution, modification, and notice
Original contents
Proving the TERMS is proving content — the original requirement in the rule's own words.
“An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or other law provides otherwise.”
Duplicates
The copy rides Rule 1003 unless authenticity or fairness is genuinely in question.
“A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.”
Authentication
Signatures, letterhead, and course of dealing meet the finding-support standard.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
The recurring mistakes
- · No account of where the original went before invoking Rule 1004
- · A duplicate offered over a genuine authenticity dispute
- · Proving modified terms with the unmodified draft
Summaries and charts
Rule 1006's route for volume — real evidence with a real price: the sources stay inspectable.
- ▸The content of voluminous records, compressed honestly
The route
The rule's own terms — voluminous, and not conveniently examinable in court.
“The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court.”
The price
The originals or duplicates stay available for examination.
“must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place”
The boundary
A summary of inadmissible records summarizes nothing — the underlying evidence carries its own gates.
The recurring mistakes
- · A chart built on records nobody could inspect
- · Argument formatted as arithmetic
- · Confusing a 1006 summary (evidence) with a demonstrative aid (illustration)
Foreign-language documents
A document the factfinder cannot read until a qualified translation arrives — on the rule's own two clocks.
- ▸The content of a foreign-language writing, through its certified translation
The 45-day clock
The rule's service package: document, translation, and the translator's affidavit or declaration.
“A translation of a foreign language document is admissible if, at least 45 days before trial, the proponent serves on all parties”
The 15-day objection
And the price of silence is in the rule too.
“the court must admit— and may not allow a party to attack the accuracy of—a translation submitted under subdivision (a)”
Foreign LAW is different
Determining another country's law is Rule 203's lane, with its own 30-day materials clock.
“at least 30 days before trial, supply all parties a copy of any written materials or sources the party intends to use to prove the foreign law”
The recurring mistakes
- · Serving the translation without the original-language document
- · An unqualified translator's certificate
- · Discovering the 45-day clock at docket call
Digital and machine evidence
Text messages
The thread that decides the case — authenticated in Texas by the finding-support standard, most often circumstantially.
- ▸Who said what to whom, and when
- ▸Notice, agreement, admission, and state of mind
Authentication
The standard is the rule's — content, context, and account linkage commonly carry it.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Hearsay
Each message is its own statement; the other side's messages and yours travel different routes.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
The 193.7 shortcut
Messages the opponent produced in discovery authenticate against them on the rule's own engine.
“production of a document in response to written discovery authenticates the document for use against that party in any pretrial proceeding or at trial”
The recurring mistakes
- · A cropped screenshot standing in for the thread
- · No link between the number, the account, and the person
- · Forgetting your own messages are hearsay when offered by you
Screenshots
A picture of data — honest shorthand for review, and the thinnest possible version of the evidence at trial.
- ▸What a screen displayed at a moment — no more
Duplicates
The capture rides Rule 1003 until authenticity or fairness is genuinely questioned — and completeness questions are exactly how that happens.
“A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.”
Original contents
Where the DATA's content is the point, the native export outranks the picture of it.
“An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or other law provides otherwise.”
Authentication
Someone still has to say what this is and where it came from.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
The recurring mistakes
- · Capturing the message and deleting the source
- · Crops that lose timestamps, participants, or the surrounding thread
- · Editing tools that quietly change what the capture shows
Business correspondence with headers, threads, and attachments — each part its own evidentiary object.
- ▸Notice and knowledge
- ▸Agreements and admissions in writing
- ▸Who was told what, and when
Authentication
Addresses, signatures, threading, and context meet the finding-support standard.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Hearsay
An email chain is a stack of statements — every forward and reply is a layer.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
The 193.7 shortcut
The opponent's own production authenticates against them.
“production of a document in response to written discovery authenticates the document for use against that party in any pretrial proceeding or at trial”
The recurring mistakes
- · Printing the last message and losing the chain
- · Attachments offered without their carrier email — or vice versa
- · Treating a forwarded statement as the forwarder's admission
Website captures
What a page said on a date — evidence that changes underneath you unless captured with its provenance.
- ▸Published statements, prices, and terms at a point in time
Authentication
Who captured it, when, from what URL — the finding-support standard wants the story.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Original contents
The page's CONTENT is usually the point — Article X is on.
“An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or other law provides otherwise.”
Hearsay
The page's statements need routes; a party's own site travels differently than a stranger's.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
The recurring mistakes
- · A capture with no URL or timestamp
- · Relying on a page that changed before anyone preserved it
- · Printing the render and losing the source
GPS and telematics data
Machine-recorded location and operation data — strong when the system is explained, fragile when it is narrated.
- ▸Where a vehicle or device was, and when
- ▸Speed, operation, and route facts
Authentication
Evidence about the system or process producing the result carries the foundation — a records custodian is not automatically a systems witness.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Expert territory
Interpreting accuracy, drift, and method can cross into specialized knowledge — Rule 702's lane, and the court gates it.
Hearsay
Pure machine output is not a person's statement — but human entries riding the data are.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
The recurring mistakes
- · A printout with no one to explain the system
- · Time zones unnormalized across sources
- · Treating derived speed as a raw reading
Database and system reports
A query's answer, printed — the report is only as good as the system, the query, and the witness who can explain both.
- ▸What a system recorded across time
- ▸Account histories, logs, and events
Authentication
The process-or-system route plus a witness who knows how entries get in and reports come out.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Hearsay
The business-records spine covers regular entries; ad-hoc annotations are their own layers.
“the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity”
Original contents
An accurate readable output can carry electronic content — completeness and filters are the fight.
The recurring mistakes
- · No record of the query and filters behind the report
- · A custodian who cannot explain the system
- · Litigation-built reports dressed as ordinary-course records
AI-generated and AI-enhanced material
Output a model produced or transformed — the newest exhibit with the oldest questions: what is it, who says so, and is it reliable?
- ▸Depends entirely on what the output is offered to show — illustration and substance are different offers
Authentication
The finding-support standard does not bend for novelty — source data, tool, version, and transformation are the story a sponsor has to tell.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Reliability
Where output carries specialized inference, Rule 702's gate and the court's role over preliminary questions do the work.
The balance
Rule 403's dangers — confusing the issues, misleading the jury — are written for exactly this.
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
The recurring mistakes
- · No provenance ledger — tool, version, inputs, edits
- · Enhancement that adds content and calls it clarity
- · A deepfake accusation with no identified anomaly, offered as argument
Images and recordings
Photographs
The most common exhibit in civil cases — a condition, a scene, an object, at a moment.
- ▸Damage and its extent
- ▸A premises condition at a point in time
- ▸Appearance and identity of objects
Authentication
A witness with knowledge that the image fairly shows what it depicts — the finding-support standard.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Original contents
Article X turns on whether the photograph's CONTENT is the thing being proved.
“An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or other law provides otherwise.”
The balance
Graphic images answer to Rule 403's own list.
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
The recurring mistakes
- · No witness who can speak to what the image shows
- · Crops that lose timestamps and context
- · Treating the photo as self-proving
Surveillance video
Fixed-camera footage — decisive when preserved natively, litigated hard when a clip is all that survives.
- ▸How an incident unfolded
- ▸Who was present, and when
- ▸Conditions the camera saw
Original contents
Describing what a recording showed, to prove its contents, is Article X — and Rule 1004's routes exist for originals genuinely gone.
“all the originals are lost or destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith”
Authentication
System-and-process testimony — how it records, retains, exports — commonly carries the foundation.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Hearsay
Images are not statements; embedded audio is its own layer.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
The recurring mistakes
- · Letting the retention cycle overwrite the source
- · Exporting a clip and discarding the native file with its player
- · A witness narrating footage that never came in
Audio recordings
Calls and captured conversations — voices to identify, words that are statements, and a lawfulness question that is its own body of law.
- ▸Who said what, in their own voice
- ▸Tone, agreement, admission
Authentication
Voice identification and context meet the finding-support standard.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Hearsay
Every recorded utterance is a statement needing a route.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
Lawfulness — routed
Whether a recording was LAWFULLY MADE is governed by Texas and federal interception law this platform has not loaded — the question is real, and it belongs with counsel.
The recurring mistakes
- · No voice-identification witness
- · Partial clips inviting completeness attacks
- · Assuming a recording's existence proves it was lawfully made
Demonstrative aids
Diagrams, timelines, and reconstructions — illustration in service of testimony, not evidence of anything by themselves.
- ▸Nothing standing alone — a demonstrative explains other evidence
The boundary
An aid that fairly reflects admitted evidence assists; one that adds content testifies without a witness.
The balance
Misleading-the-jury is Rule 403's own listed danger.
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Limiting
On request, scope gets restricted and the jury instructed — Rule 105's mechanism.
“the court, on request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly”
The recurring mistakes
- · An 'illustration' smuggling unproven facts
- · Scale and proportion quietly wrong
- · Demonstratives wandering into the jury room as if admitted
Physical and demonstrative
Physical objects
The thing itself — identified by a witness, or traced hand to hand when it is fungible.
- ▸Condition, defect, and identity of the object in issue
Authentication
Distinctive characteristics or a chain of custody — both are finding-support routes.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Preservation
Alteration, repair, or disposal mid-dispute becomes its own fight — the preservation desk covers the Texas doctrine (a later phase builds it).
The balance
Inflammatory objects answer to Rule 403's list.
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
The recurring mistakes
- · Custody gaps on fungible items
- · Repairing or altering the object before inspection
- · No witness tying the exhibit to the incident
Paper testimony and process
Deposition testimony
Sworn answers taken under the discovery rules — read or played later under conditions the rules set.
- ▸What a witness swore under examination
- ▸Impeachment by prior statement
The process
Notice, conduct, certification, and use travel under the deposition rules — loaded whole in the corpus.
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is”
Hearsay interplay
Use at trial rides specific rule routes; an opposing party's deposition travels differently than a nonparty's.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
Completeness
Reading a fragment invites the remainder — Rules 106 and 107.
The recurring mistakes
- · Designations without the surrounding context
- · Impeachment without the predicate
- · Treating errata as a rewrite tool
Affidavits and unsworn declarations
Paper testimony — with a Texas statute that lets an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury stand in for the notarized page.
- ▸Foundation facts, records predicates, and summary-judgment support
The substitute
The evidence rule itself names the unsworn-declaration route for the records affidavit.
“The proponent may use an unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury in place of an affidavit.”
Personal knowledge
The witness rules still govern what the paper can say — a declarant needs what a live witness needs.
Hearsay
An affidavit offered for its truth at trial is a statement like any other.
“Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:”
The recurring mistakes
- · Conclusions where facts belong
- · A declaration missing the statute's required form
- · Paper testimony at trial where a live witness was required
The other side's discovery responses
Interrogatory answers, admissions, and produced documents — evidence the opponent made for you, on rules with teeth.
- ▸Admitted facts
- ▸The opponent's own answers and documents, offered against them
The 193.7 engine
Produced documents authenticate against the producer.
“production of a document in response to written discovery authenticates the document for use against that party in any pretrial proceeding or at trial”
The exclusion default
What they never disclosed, they presumptively cannot use.
“may not introduce in evidence the material or information that was not timely disclosed, or offer the testimony”
Hearsay
An opposing party's statements travel on their own route — the label matters less than the offer.
The recurring mistakes
- · Sitting on the ten-day authenticity clock
- · Forgetting your OWN production authenticates against you
- · Reading an admission's scope wider than its words
Criminal-statute lanes — routed to counsel
Outcry statements
A child-abuse victim's first report to an adult — a criminal-statute lane with its own witness, notice, and hearing machinery.
Routed to counsel · Article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure builds this lane — proper outcry witness, notice, and a reliability hearing — and it is criminal defense and prosecution work. This platform names the statute and routes the matter to counsel; it does not operationalize criminal evidence.
Statements of an accused
Custodial statements and their recording, warning, and voluntariness machinery.
Routed to counsel · Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs — warnings, recording, voluntariness, and the jury issues that follow. Criminal defense counsel's work, routed; this civil operating system does not compute suppression.
Identification procedures
Lineups and photo arrays, and the reliability fights around them.
Routed to counsel · Article 38.20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional overlay govern identification evidence. Routed to criminal counsel — named, never operationalized here.
Certificates of analysis
Lab results offered by certificate, with notice and demand machinery attached.
Routed to counsel · Article 38.41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure builds the certificate route, and the confrontation questions that ride it are constitutional criminal law. Routed to counsel.
Chain-of-custody affidavits
The criminal statute's paper route for custody proof.
Routed to counsel · Article 38.42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure supplies the affidavit lane and its objection timing. Criminal practice, routed — the civil chain questions live on the physical-objects card instead.
Every quoted fragment on this page comes from the loaded corpus through the needle floor, and every cited unit link opens the verbatim text with its hash and review state. Where an item's lawfulness question runs on law this platform has not loaded, the card says so and routes — the absence is stated, never papered over.
Social media posts and messages
Posts, profiles, and direct messages — authenticated circumstantially in Texas, attacked through authorship.
Authentication
Distinctive content plus account linkage is the working pattern under the finding-support standard — authorship is where the fight lives.
Hearsay
A post offered for its truth needs a route; a party's own post travels as an opposing party's statement.
Lawful acquisition
How nonpublic content was OBTAINED is its own legal question this platform does not answer — deceptive access is a counsel-and-ethics matter, routed.
The recurring mistakes