Subscribing Witness's Testimony is not necessary to authenticate a writing. Which rule states this?

• A. Rule 902
• B. Rule 1002
• C. Rule 903
• D. Rule 1003

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that a writing can be authenticated without calling the subscribing witness to testify about its execution. Rule 903 explicitly provides that the testimony of the subscribing witness is not required to prove the execution of a writing, so long as there is other evidence enough to establish authenticity. This means you can rely on alternative evidence—such as the writing’s contents, the signature being admitted by the signer, or handwriting identification by an expert or lay witness—to prove that the document is genuine.

Self-authenticating documents (Rule 902) are a separate concept: some documents are admitted without extrinsic evidence of authenticity, but that rule is about certain types of documents being self-authenticating, not about the necessity (or lack thereof) of subscribing-witness testimony for execution. The best evidence rule (Rule 1002) concerns proving the contents of a writing by producing the original document, and Rule 1003 deals with duplicates. None of these specifically state that subscribing witness testimony is not required to prove execution in the way Rule 903 does.