<![CDATA[Electronic evidence can establish communications, transactions, and events that conventional testimony cannot fully reconstruct. Its usefulness nevertheless depends on an adequate foundation connecting the material presented in court with its claimed source and history. This article examines the authentication of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings at the Jambi District Court under the legal framework applicable through 2025. It employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by constitutional jurisprudence, forensic guidance, and relevant scholarship. The analysis distinguishes lawful acquisition, authenticity, integrity, attribution, relevance, and evidentiary weight. It argues that neither a matching hash nor possession of a device independently establishes authorship or the truth of its contents. Equally, the absence of a forensic laboratory report does not automatically establish inadmissibility in every case. Authentication should address the actual dispute through a documented and proportionate evidentiary foundation. The article proposes an assessment framework linking acquisition records, preservation, examination, courtroom presentation, and judicial reasoning. Its contribution is a locally directed normative framework rather than an empirical assessment of court performance. Reliable adjudication requires transparent handling records, opportunities for challenge, and explicit findings concerning the limits of each digital item.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
