CLARIFYING THE EVIDENTIARY LINE BETWEEN SUMMARIES AND ILLUSTRATIONS: THE AMENDMENT TO RULE 1006 AND THE ADDITION OF RULE 107

Author: Jonathan Ryzowicz, Senior Editor

The Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) have long provided the foundation of evidentiary practice in federal courts.[i] The Rules shape the way judges and juries receive, evaluate, and apply the evidence presented.[ii] Although enacted over fifty years ago, the Rules have been frequently amended to adapt to changing technologies and to increase fairness in the trial process through evolving methods. [iii] Effective December 1, 2024, amendments to the rules provided another set of changes, attempting to resolve challenges among emerging technologies.[iv] Notably,  these included the addition of FRE Rule 107, “Illustrative Aids,” and revised Rule 1006, “Summaries to Prove Content.”[v] These provisions, added and amended together, delineate what was a cautiously growing grey area of evidentiary rule interpretation and resolve the relationship between summaries admitted as substantive evidence and illustrative aids used to help jurors understand evidence.[vi] The changes were a product of many lower court splits and are drafted with particular language to provide clarification.[vii]

The Revision to Rule 1006

The 2024 amendments revised Rule 1006, which controls the use of summaries, charts, and calculations to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs.[viii] The rule is designed to simplify evidence in the form of a condensed version of the original document or piece of evidence.[ix] Under its previous application,  the rule  allowed summaries and charts to prove the content of large masses of evidence that could not be conveniently examined.[x] However, courts varied in how they determined this: some required submission of the evidence to the court, while others allowed summaries without prior submission of the original evidence.[xi] This led to inconsistencies among lower courts about the breadth of summaries allowed.[xii]

Rule 1006 now makes clear that submission of the evidence to the court is not required.[xiii] Summaries may be used “as evidence… offered to prove the content… whether or not they have been introduced into evidence.”[xiv] The limitation on the rule is  the convenience of producing the writings, recordings, or photographs.[xv] Nonetheless, although the revision enhances clarity regarding the use of summaries, it also narrows the Rule’s application by requiring production of the evidence to the opposing party and requiring that the summaries be admitted as substantive evidence.[xvi] 

The Addition of Rule 107

Overview of Rule 107

While adapting Rule 1006 in scope and application, drafters of the rules identified the other side of the problem: not everything before a jury is meant as evidence.[xvii] As a result, Rule 107 was added as a new rule, permitting a court to “allow a party to present an illustrative aid to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or argument if the aid’s utility in assisting comprehension is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time.”[xviii] Illustrative aids are not evidence, and they are not allowed to go with the jury for deliberation unless parties agree or the court finds  good cause.[xix] The balancing test establishes the limits of what is permitted as an illustrative aid, giving courts discretion to allow aids only when their value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.[xx]

An illustrative aid includes drawings, photos, diagrams, video depictions, charts, graphs, AI-generated materials, and other computer-generated images.[xxi] Under previous editions of the Federal Rules, there was no explicit rule with respect to illustrative aids, creating confusion as to their application.[xxii]

The Committee Note provides clarification: the term “demonstrative evidence” does not encompass illustrative aids. Demonstrative evidence refers to substantive evidence introduced to prove a disputed fact through demonstration, whereas an illustrative aid is a presentation tool to help the trier of fact understand evidence or an argument.[xxiii] Because an illustrative aid is not evidence, it does not go with the jury.[xxiv]

Significance and Application

The enactment of Rule 107 is important. First, it creates clear guidelines for judges’ ruling on demonstrative versus illustrative evidence, helping reduce inconsistencies among decisions.[xxv] Second, it brings clarity to litigators using visual aids through each phase of trial.[xxvi] Third, and most importantly, these illustrative aids help the jury understand the evidence while also protecting against potential prejudice.[xxvii]

While the rule is still considered new, courts have already addressed issues surrounding Rule 107.[xxviii] In United States v. Farias, the court highlighted that transcripts of recordings are allowed under Rule 107 to help jurors understand evidence, so long as the transcript is accurate and does not alter the evidence into a new evidentiary meaning.[xxix] In Farias, the court had admitted evidence of authenticated telephone calls of a conversation in Spanish.[xxx] The court allowed transcripts of the conversation in English under Rule 107 to allow the jury to understand the substance of the conversation.[xxxi] Reiterating the balancing test of Rule 107, the court did not find that use of the transcripts was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.[xxxii]

Conclusion

While not necessarily flashy, the addition and changes of Rule 107 and Rule 1006 represent a significant move toward a modernized court process.[xxxiii] With vast amounts of evidence now able to be collected, Rule 1006 allows lawyers to condense this material into understandable summaries for the jury without requiring the needless examination of voluminous records.[xxxiv] Rule 107 allows jurors to better understand material when needed, while also setting boundaries to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial process.[xxxv] The goal of these changes is to improve the fairness and efficiency of trials, as well as to help juries understand complex evidence in a rapidly evolving landscape.[xxxvi] Overall, the relationship between Rules 1006 and Rule 107 helps ensure that evidence is presented clearly and understood by the fact-finders who decide each case.

[i] U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence (last visited Oct. 12, 2025).

[ii] See id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Fed. R. Evid. 107, 1006.

[v] Id.

[vi] See id.

[vii] Id.; see Fed. R. Evid. 107 advisory committee’s notes to 2024 amendment.

[viii] See Fed. R. Evid. 1006 advisory committee’s notes to 2024 amendment.

[ix] See id.

[x] See Fed. R. Evid. 1006 (2011).

[xi] See United States v. Streb, 477 F. Supp. 3d 835 (2020) (aff’d that only the evidence, and not the summaries need be produced to the opposing party); see also United States v. Maike, 613 F. Supp. 3d 991 (2020) (requiring a five-factor test be satisfied to admit summaries under Rule 1006).

[xii] See id.

[xiii] See Fed. R. Evid. 1006 (2024).

[xiv] See Fed. R. Evid. 1006(b) (2024).

[xv] See id.

[xvi] See supra note iv.  

[xvii] See Fed. R. Evid. 107 advisory committee’s notes to 2024 amendment.

[xviii] Fed. R. Evid. 107 (2024) (emphasis added).

[xix] See id.

[xx] See id.

[xxi] See id.

[xxii] See Fed. R. Evid. (as amended Dec. 1, 2023).

[xxiii] See supra note xvii.

[xxiv] Id.

[xxv] See id.

[xxvi] See id.

[xxvii] See id.

[xxviii] See United States v. Farias, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19944 (2025).

[xxix] Id.

[xxx] Id. at 4.

[xxxi] Id. at 14.

[xxxii] Id. at 15.

[xxxiii] Anthony J. Battaglia, To Demonstrate or illustrate? The Question Under the New Federal Rules, Fed. Bar Assoc. San Diego (Aug. 5, 2024), https://www.fbasd.org/post/to-demonstrate-or-illustrate-the-question-under-the-new-federal-rules.

[xxxiv] See supra note viii.

[xxxv] See supra note xvii.

[xxxvi] Supra note xxxiv.