To authenticate real evidence, what is one way to show the object is what the proponent claims it to be?

To authenticate real evidence, the testimony of a witness who recognizes the object is essential. This type of testimony provides a direct and credible link between the object and the claim being made about it. A witness who has personal knowledge of the object can affirm its identity and connection to the case, effectively establishing its relevance and authenticity.

Particularly, this approach is grounded in the legal principle that a witness can authenticate a piece of evidence if they have sufficient familiarity with it, which may arise from prior experience or exposure. Such recognition adds reliability to the claim that the evidence is what the proponent asserts it to be.

In contrast, using anecdotal evidence from witnesses does not carry the same weight, as it may be based on opinions or unsubstantiated claims rather than concrete identification. Witness accounts that are public knowledge may also not provide sufficient individual recognition or verification of the evidence. Meanwhile, limiting authentication to expert analysis from a similar case is overly restrictive and does not take into account the necessary personal recognition by a witness who can establish the connection directly.