Which statement accurately describes the use of summaries under Rule 1006?

Which statement accurately describes the use of summaries under Rule 1006?

• A. The summary replaces the originals and the underlying documents need not be available.
• B. The summary may be admitted only if no originals exist anywhere.
• C. The summary is admitted only if the originals are too vast to produce but the originals must be available for inspection.
• D. The summary must be accompanied by a jury instruction about its limitations.

Answer: (D)

Rule 1006 lets you prove the content of voluminous writings by using a summary, chart, or calculation, as long as the originals (or duplicates) are available for inspection by the court and the parties. The important part here is not just that a summary can be admitted, but that the jury is properly informed about its role. The best answer captures that the summary should be accompanied by a jury instruction about its limitations, so the jurors understand that what they’re seeing is a summarized version of the originals and that the actual documents remain available for review if needed. This helps prevent overreliance on the summary and preserves the weight and integrity of the originals. The other options miss key aspects: a summary does not automatically replace the originals; the originals must still be available for inspection, not “nowhere” to be found; the rule does not require that no originals exist anywhere or that the originals must be too vast to produce—only that the content is voluminous and impractical to examine in court.

Rule 1006 lets you prove the content of voluminous writings by using a summary, chart, or calculation, as long as the originals (or duplicates) are available for inspection by the court and the parties. The important part here is not just that a summary can be admitted, but that the jury is properly informed about its role. The best answer captures that the summary should be accompanied by a jury instruction about its limitations, so the jurors understand that what they’re seeing is a summarized version of the originals and that the actual documents remain available for review if needed. This helps prevent overreliance on the summary and preserves the weight and integrity of the originals.

The other options miss key aspects: a summary does not automatically replace the originals; the originals must still be available for inspection, not “nowhere” to be found; the rule does not require that no originals exist anywhere or that the originals must be too vast to produce—only that the content is voluminous and impractical to examine in court.