If you’re gearing up for a federal trial, make sure you are familiar with Federal Rules of Evidence 107 and 1006, which took effect December 1, 2024. Both reshape how charts, diagrams, and summaries are presented at trial—clarifying what juries can see and what they can consider as actual evidence.
Meet Rule 107: “Illustrative Aids” Are the New “Demonstratives”
Rule 107 introduces a new term—“illustrative aids,” replacing the more familiar “demonstratives.” The name change isn’t just cosmetic. It aims to standardize the way courts treat these visuals and to curb inconsistent rulings about their admissibility and use.
Think of an illustrative aid as a teaching tool—a timeline in closing, a medical diagram in a personal injury case, or a slide summarizing an expert’s opinions. They are not evidence themselves; they are there to help explain the evidence. And that distinction matters.
But don’t assume you can just show your aid to the jury. The undue prejudice analysis under Rule 403 still applies: the aid can’t be unduly prejudicial.[1] And even if you clear that hurdle, Rule 107 makes three more important points:
- Record Requirement: When “practicable,” any illustrative aid used at trial “must” be entered into the record.[2]
- Advance Disclosure: You might have to share the aid with opposing counsel ahead of time—timing is left to the judge’s discretion.[3]
- Jury Use in Deliberations: If the judge allows the jury to take the aid into deliberations, it must (on request) instruct the jury that the aid is not evidence—or proof—of anything.[4]
Revised Rule 1006: Summaries Are Evidence
Rule 1006 was given a key clarification: summaries are substantive evidence—even if the underlying documents aren’t admitted.[5] In effect, Rule 1006 remains an exception to the best evidence rule.[6]
But Rule 403, just like all the other rules of evidence, still looms large. If the court finds that the summary risks unfair prejudice, it’s out. The same goes for hearsay and relevance. In other words, nothing in the revised Rule 1006 changes the fact that the information being summarized must still be otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. Rule 1006 also retains the requirement that the underlying materials must be made available—and it’s up to the judge to decide if your production was reasonable.[7]
Bottom Line
The dividing line is now clear:
- If you want to offer your summary or aid as substantive proof, go with Rule 1006.
- If you want it merely to assist in understanding the evidence, stick to Rule 107.
And in both cases, plan early, prep carefully, and always weigh the risk of prejudice. These new rules offer clarity—but only if you use them strategically.
—————————————————————–
[1] See Automated Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C., No 16-cv-04762-LTS-JW, 2025 WL 4987018, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024) (allowing a video only as an illustrative aid and excluding its audio components from consideration as either substantive evidence or an illustrative aid).
[2] Fed. R. Evid. 107(c). Since the rule refers to an aid “used” at trial, it is not clear whether it refers only to aids that are actually displayed to the court. Given the potential ambiguity, caution would say that any illustrative aid—whether you are allowed to display it to the court or not—should be entered into the record to preserve any argument that you should have been permitted to use the aid.
[3] See Fed. R. Evid. 107 advisory committee’s note to 2024 amendment.
[4] Id.
[5] Fed. R. Evid. 1006 advisory committee’s note to 2024 amendment.
[6] See Fed. R. Evid. 1002; Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 8041 (2d. ed. Updated May 21, 2025).
[7] See Fed. R. Evid. 1006(b).