How to seal a screenshot for court (the FRE 901 walkthrough)

What FRE 901 actually requires

FRE 901(a) requires the proponent of evidence to “produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(b) lists non-exhaustive examples — including testimony of a witness with knowledge (b)(1), comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact (b)(3), and “evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result” (b)(9).

For sealed screenshots, the cleanest authentication path is FRE 901(b)(4) (“distinctive characteristics”) and FRE 901(b)(9) (process or system showing accuracy). The cryptographic primitives — SHA-256, ECDSA signature, external timestamp anchor — are the “process or system” producing the accurate result. Authentication becomes showing the rule was followed and the verification succeeds.

What to bring to the courtroom

1. The original screenshot file. The file you sealed, on durable storage (USB, court-acceptable digital evidence format). Not a re-export; the bytes that match the receipt's SHA.
2. The receipt URL. Printed on paper as part of the exhibit, AND accessible from a court-acceptable device for live verification. The receipt page shows the timestamp, SHA hash, signature, and OpenTimestamps anchor status.
3. Our public key. Printed copy from /.well-known/receipts-pubkey.pem. The PEM-formatted ECDSA public key the signature verifies against.
4. The OpenTimestamps inclusion proof. Downloadable from each receipt page as JSON. Lets an expert witness verify the timestamp anchor independently of us.
5. Methodology document. A printed copy of relevant sections of /methodology describing the cryptographic protocol. Useful for the court and for your expert witness to reference.

The expected courtroom flow

For a cooperative court with technical literacy:

1. You move the screenshot into evidence.
2. Opposing counsel may challenge authenticity.
3. You authenticate via FRE 901(b)(9) by walking the cryptographic process: SHA-256 of file → receipt URL displays matching hash → ECDSA signature verifies → OpenTimestamps anchor verifies.
4. Opposing counsel may probe — “couldn't receipts.you have backdated this?” You answer: the OpenTimestamps anchor is on the Bitcoin blockchain; the anchor predates the dispute; anyone, including opposing counsel, can verify independently.
5. The court accepts the authentication; the substantive question about the content of the screenshot is the question that gets adjudicated.

For a less technically literate court, the expert-witness path under FRE 702 may be cleaner: have a computer-forensics expert testify that the cryptographic protocol produces an accurate result, then introduce the receipt as an exhibit the expert authenticates.

What opposing counsel will probably challenge

• “Could receipts.you backdate?” No — the OpenTimestamps anchor is on the Bitcoin blockchain. Backdating requires rewriting Bitcoin history, which is computationally infeasible. We've documented the anchor protocol publicly at /methodology.
• “Could the witness have edited the screenshot before sealing?” Yes — the receipt proves the file existed at the timestamp, not that the depicted content is real. This is honest framing; the receipt's job is provenance, not content verification. For content verification, you pair the receipt with corroborating evidence (witnesses, platform logs, archive.today snapshots).
• “Is the signing service trustworthy?” The signing key is published; the OpenTimestamps anchor is on a public chain. Even if receipts.you the service were dishonest, the cryptographic primitives produce verifiable output that doesn't require trusting us beyond what the chain enforces.

State courts and international jurisdictions

Most state systems follow FRE 901's general approach (cf. CRE 901, CPLR 4540, etc.). Civil-law jurisdictions (most of continental Europe, much of Latin America) handle documentary evidence differently — generally with a stronger emphasis on form-based authentication (notarization, qualified-timestamp providers like TrueScreen). For EU regulatory or commercial matters, qualified-timestamp services may be procedurally required; see our vs. TrueScreen comparison.

UK courts (post-Disclosure Pilot Scheme) accept cryptographic-timestamp evidence under standard documentary rules; the court's discretion on weight is wide. Canadian and Australian practice is similar.

The honest legal posture

Sealing a screenshot via receipts.you is a strong authentication step under FRE 901(b)(9). It is not a substitute for the rest of the evidentiary case: witnesses, contemporary notes, platform-side logs, corroborating documents. The receipt makes one part of the case (the screenshot's provenance) un-disputable; the substantive question about what the screenshot depicts remains for the court.

For full vertical workflow notes, see /for/lawyers. For the comparison with qualified-timestamp providers, see vs. TrueScreen.