Substantive, Demonstrative, or Illustrative?

Defining and Applying Categories of Exhibits

March 2026 By Matthew W. E. Bradley

This article describes the differences between various types of exhibits and explains when and how each may be used.

article citation

As a judicial officer, I try to ask myself one threshold question each time someone moves to admit an exhibit: For what purpose is this being offered? In many cases, the purpose is obvious, but not always. Too often, the movant does not specify the intended purpose. But perhaps the trickier question is what kind of exhibit it is—is it substantive, demonstrative, or illustrative?

Allowing an exhibit’s use without specifying its purpose is fraught with problems because the foundation required, the exhibit’s permissible use, how general screening tests apply, and appellate review can turn on that distinction. This article provides a framework for distinguishing between substantive, demonstrative, and illustrative exhibits as used during a trial’s evidentiary phase (thus, it does not consider using illustrative aids during opening statements or closing arguments). It then covers the requirements for using each and how they differ. Finally, the article examines the practical implications of the distinction, including how a court may consider the exhibit in light of the general screening tests, how hearsay applies, and how to preserve the record for appellate review.

Distinguishing Between Substantive, Demonstrative, and Illustrative Exhibits

The difference between substantive, demonstrative, and illustrative exhibits trips up many attorneys (and judicial officers).1 Importantly, this article is careful to use the term “exhibit” or “aid” when discussing these categories rather than “evidence,” because only two of those categories are truly evidence. “Evidence” is something that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; it is presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.2 Thus, when something (such as an illustrative aid as defined below) is merely used to help explain testimony but has no independent probative value, it is not evidence. This section describes each category.

Substantive Exhibits

The most common exhibit type is the substantive exhibit. Substantive exhibits consist of the actual items involved in the dispute and have independent probative value. Substantive exhibits can be documentary evidence, direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence. Exhibits within this category are subject to all the typical screening devices used by the court, including screening for relevance, authentication, hearsay, and the CRE 403 probative-versus-prejudice balancing test. Substantive exhibits can serve as independent evidence of facts. For example, a properly authenticated and admitted photograph depicting the interior of a home could be used to conclude that a table was in a specific spot—even if no witness had testified about that topic.

Demonstrative Exhibits

The next category is the demonstrative exhibit. If you read 10 opinions about demonstrative exhibits, you are likely to find a smattering of different definitions—often conflating demonstrative exhibits with illustrative exhibits.3 But recognizing that courts and attorneys use the terms inconsistently does little to help apply the rules effectively. Thus, to establish a practical framework, this article uses a prescriptivist definition to clarify the proper analytical framework. While there may not be a “right” answer or a conclusive definition of a demonstrative exhibit based on the term’s historical use—as such use has varied—settling on a working definition allows courts and practitioners to identify demonstrative exhibits and apply the proper analytical framework. That said, readers should recognize that different courts may not be using the term with the same precision and will likely not coalesce around a single definition unless the rules of evidence are changed to distinguish between these evidentiary categories.

For this article’s purposes, demonstrative exhibits are exhibits—other than those things actually and directly involved in the issues raised by the litigation—that are used to show the probability or improbability of a fact of consequence. Demonstrative exhibits have independent probative value that can be relied on by a fact finder separately from any witness testimony (assuming the exhibit is admitted correctly). They can be tangible or intangible. But demonstrative exhibits do more than merely illustrate oral testimony; they allow the fact finder to examine the exhibit and rely on it. For example, a set of gloves that were the same brand, model, and size as those alleged to be worn by a killer could be a demonstrative exhibit to prove that it does not fit the defendant’s hands. Once admitted, the jury may examine the gloves directly and consider them as the jury deems appropriate in reaching its verdict.

Illustrative Aids

The final category of exhibit that might be used during the trial’s evidentiary phase is the illustrative aid. This article uses the term illustrative aid rather than illustrative exhibit to be consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence, though the distinction is merely one of form rather than function. Demonstrative exhibits and illustrative aids are often lumped into the same category, but they are not the same. This confusion is understandable—even courts often conflate the two categories.4 Yet demonstrative exhibits and illustrative aids are conceptually distinct and have separate foundational requirements, screening considerations, and permissible uses.

An illustrative aid is any tool that helps the fact finder follow a witness’s testimony. For example, if a witness is describing the events leading to the day of a murder, that witness might include many important dates and incidents. All those dates can be difficult to keep straight while listening to the testimony, so an illustrative aid (such as a timeline) might help a fact finder visualize and organize this information. But that aid has no independent probative value; its value is based on the value of the underlying testimony alone. As such, an illustrative aid is a derivative exhibit, and its utility is tied to the underlying evidence it is used to clarify.

That said, illustrative aids should be analytically distinguished from exhibits introduced under CRE 1006. Under that rule, the “contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.”5 But, unlike illustrative aids, such summaries are considered evidence and can be relied on by the fact finder for their own probative value.6

Use and Admissibility of Different Exhibit Types

Using these working definitions, we can now see how the rules interact with each exhibit category. Despite this article’s use of the term exhibit (or aid) rather than evidence when referring to the purposes for which something might be used, all three categories are subject to the rules of evidence. But because the theoretical basis for different categories differs, applying the rules may differ in practice depending on the underlying basis. And while all three exhibit types can be used in the courtroom, only substantive and demonstrative exhibits are admitted into evidence. This section addresses the rules for use (including authentication, hearsay, and the balancing test) for each category.

Use Versus Admission

It is essential to distinguish between using an exhibit and admitting it as evidence. Use merely means that something may be presented; it does not mean that the exhibit can be relied on as evidence. Admission, by contrast, means that the exhibit is formally received into evidence and can be relied on as proof of the facts it purports to show.

Generally

Before addressing how the rules apply to the three categories, it helps to have a broad view of how exhibits are generally handled. The rules of evidence provide a broad framework, but there is no rigid sequence that must be followed in evaluating an exhibit. That said, the court typically analyzes the exhibit as follows:

1. Relevance. The first hurdle is relevance. If it is not relevant, it cannot be admitted as evidence.7
2. Authentication. Even if an exhibit is relevant, it must still be authenticated.
3. Probative-prejudicial balancing. If an exhibit is relevant, the court must then consider the probative-prejudicial balancing test. This test allows the court to screen out relevant evidence when there is a concern that it will be used for an improper purpose such that the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.8
4. Other screening mechanisms. If an exhibit is relevant, authentic, and not barred by the CRE 403 balancing test, then the court considers other applicable requirements—hearsay, privilege, or other issues.

Relevance

The threshold question is whether evidence is relevant. Generally, relevant evidence is admissible, but irrelevant evidence is not.9 An item is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”10 Thus, relevance is a low bar.

Relevance and substantive exhibits. Substantive exhibits are the easiest to connect with relevance. Suppose someone shot and killed a victim with a .45-caliber weapon. In that case, evidence that the defendant was found with .45-caliber ammunition makes it more likely that the defendant was the killer because it shows the defendant had access to the same type of ammunition used in the crime. And because the prosecution is trying to admit the actual ammunition found on the defendant at the time of arrest, it meets the above definition of a substantive exhibit.

Relevance and demonstrative exhibits. Demonstrative exhibits are more attenuated in relevance to the facts specifically at issue, but they still have independent probative value when evaluating an essential fact in the case. Their relevance is contingent on some link and similarity to the alleged events. Returning to the example of a glove being found at a crime scene, an exemplar of the gloves allegedly worn by the killer is relevant if it can prove (or disprove) that the defendant’s hands could fit the gloves. The jury can rely on the exemplar gloves to make that determination, which relates to whether this defendant committed the act.

Again, the relevance of demonstrative exhibits depends on a close fit to the facts at hand. Thus, relevance closely overlaps with authentication for demonstrative exhibits; however, relevance and authentication remain technically distinct even in this context. For demonstrative exhibits, relevance requires that the reasoning, methodology, and application to the facts at hand be solid enough to be relied on by the fact finder. Establishing such relevance may thus require an expert witness and a hearing under People v. Shreck. That said, a demonstrative exhibit need not be a perfect fit. It is sufficient if the conditions are similar enough to the allegations. Once the proponent meets this threshold, any imperfections or deviations from the actual events are a matter of weight.

Consider a homicide trial in which the state alleges that the defendant pushed the victim over a balcony railing, while the defense argues that the victim accidentally fell over the railing. To support its theory, the defense hired an expert witness to show that a person could fall over the low railing after backing into it while intoxicated. The defense expert uses a mannequin to test whether a person could fall over the railing under the conditions described. If the defense wanted to introduce this exhibit (including a video showing the testing with the mannequin), it must first establish the exhibit’s relevance by showing how it fits the facts in issue.

For example, the court would likely have to consider the “fit” between the mannequin’s size and the victim’s size. A seven-foot-tall mannequin used to simulate the fall when the victim was only 5´1˝ would raise serious questions about relevance, potentially requiring expert testimony to explain whether the size differential undermines the reliability or whether the re-creation was “close enough.” The expert would have to testify about the method used in the test to establish its reliability. Unless the test’s reliability is established, it cannot be relevant.11 But the relevancy of the demonstrative exhibit remains tied to the facts underlying the case. If the person fell from an unrailed deck rather than a balcony with a railing, then the experiment would be irrelevant to the case as the conditions do not sufficiently align with the facts in dispute.

Relevance and illustrative aids. Illustrative aids are the most challenging to connect with relevance because they are not evidence. Instead, they represent the evidence. Illustrative aids are merely a derivative form of the evidence meant to aid understanding by clarifying the presentation. So the relevance of such an exhibit is inextricably linked to the relevance of the evidence that it is trying to assist the fact finder in understanding.

Because illustrative aids are not evidence, some commentators believe that the proper philosophical grounding for screening illustrative exhibits stems not from the general rules governing evidentiary exhibits but from the trial judge’s ability to control the order and manner of presentation of testimony under CRE 611.12 This article adopts that view. Under CRE 611, the “court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence” to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.13 The Federal Rules of Evidence likewise adopt the view that controlling the use of illustrative aids comes from the authority to control the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence under the analogous Fed. R. Evid. 611.

Yet to help clarify the issue, Fed. R. Evid. 107 was added in 2024 “to provide standards for the use of illustrative aids.”14 That rule provides that the “court may 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.”15 And Fed. R. Evid. 107 clarifies that illustrative aids are not evidence.16

Colorado does not yet have a similar rule, but the same factors stated in Fed. R. Evid. 107 still apply to illustrative aids because those factors are already inherent in CRE 611. That said, Colorado could benefit from adopting a Fed. R. Evid. 107 analogue to make explicit the requirements for illustrative aids and help reduce the confusion about their use.

Authentication

While relevance is necessary, it is not sufficient for admission. Even if an exhibit is logically relevant to the proceedings, it must also be authenticated. Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility and is governed by CRE 901.17

But authentication is not a high standard.18 It is enough if there is “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”19 The trial court serves as a gatekeeper under CRE 104, deciding whether a reasonable fact finder could find the exhibit authentic (even if the trial judge does not). If so, the exhibit is authenticated, and the fact finder can give it whatever weight it considers appropriate.20

CRE 901 sets out a nonexclusive list of examples that are sufficient for authentication, but courts may rely on any method producing a comparable assurance of reliability. This article takes the view that authentication differs between substantive and demonstrative exhibits, while illustrative aids—because they are governed by CRE 611 rather than the evidentiary foundations for admission—fall outside the scope of CRE 901.

Authentication of substantive exhibits. At their core, substantive exhibits are things that are alleged to be directly involved in the facts of the matter at hand. It is the actual thing involved—not duplicates, copies, or exemplars. Thus, the foundation for authentication requires both proof of what an exhibit is and proof of how this exhibit was involved in the issues at hand. The order in which these foundations are laid does not matter as long as both are made.

Consider a situation where a defendant is arrested for possession of child sexual abuse materials. A forensic computer examiner is on the stand. The prosecution seeks to introduce an image obtained from the defendant’s computer. First, the state might lay a foundation of how this exhibit is connected with the defendant:

Prosecution: Did you examine the defendant’s computer during your investigation?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecution: Did you download any files from that computer?
Witness: Yes, we downloaded 1,129 files. Each file was assigned a unique identification number and logged.
Prosecution: I am showing you People’s Exhibit E. Do you recognize that exhibit?
Witness: I do.
Prosecution: What is it
Witness: It is a file that I downloaded from the defendant’s computer.
Prosecution: How do you know?
Witness: I see the file stamp that I added to it for identification purposes after I retrieved it from the defendant’s computer.

Second, the prosecution would need to lay a foundation about what the exhibit is:

Prosecution: What type of file is this?
Witness: It is an image file.
Prosecution: What does the image depict?
Witness: It depicts a prepubescent child engaging in sexual acts with an adult male.

After laying this foundation, the prosecution can then move to admit the exhibit. The witness need not exclude all possibilities that the file depicts something else. If there is enough information for a fact finder to find that the proffered evidence is what the proponent claims it to be, any shortcomings go to the weight of the evidence and do not prevent its admissibility.21

Authentication of demonstrative exhibits. Unlike substantive exhibits, demonstrative exhibits are not the actual items involved in the allegations. Instead, they show how something might work or replicate conditions relevant to the case. Most of the heavy lifting for demonstrative exhibits is done when the exhibit is evaluated for relevance, where the proponent must show a sufficient connection to the alleged facts. Yet even if an exhibit is relevant, it must still be authenticated. In other words, the court must determine that this is the exhibit it has found to be relevant. That said, the relevance and authentication inquiries are so intertwined that they may be established simultaneously by the same testimony.

For example, suppose the court finds that an exemplar glove—matching the version and size of a glove found at the crime scene—is relevant as a demonstrative exhibit to show how it would fit on the defendant’s hand. This satisfies relevance, but it does not satisfy authentication. To authenticate the exhibit, the prosecution must lay additional foundation showing that the item meets the requirements necessary for it to have logical relevance to the case in the first place. Thus, the prosecution must show that the item presented is indeed a glove made by the same manufacturer in the same style and size. In other words, it must show that this exhibit is the exhibit type contemplated at the relevance stage.

A foundation might be laid in the following way:

Prosecution: I am showing you now what is marked as People’s Exhibit F. Do you recognize it?
Witness: I do.
Prosecution: What is it?
Witness: It is a glove I obtained as part of this investigation.
Prosecution: Where did you obtain it?
Witness: I obtained it from The Hairy Hand glove store.
Prosecution: Do you know what brand it is?
Witness: It is a Simpson.
Prosecution: How do you know?
Witness: It has the trademark on the glove and came in a Simpson box. The Hairy Hand Glove Shop is an authorized distributor for Simpson Gloves.
Prosecution: What size is it?
Witness: Large.

Authentication of illustrative aids. Illustrative aids are a different beast. Because they are not evidence, a proper framework would not subject them to the same tests as substantive or demonstrative exhibits. The drafters of Fed. R. Evid. 107 recognized this by creating a separate framework for illustrative aids. That framework has similar requirements to other rules, so its inclusion makes little sense unless the drafters believed that illustrative aids were not subject to tests for other exhibits—for example, Fed. R. Evid. 107 provides its own balancing test that is like the balancing test under Fed. R. Evid. 403.

But that does not mean that such exhibits are not subject to any form of authentication. Because an illustrative aid is a tool to present verbal testimony in a nonverbal manner, the testifying witness (the sponsor) must confirm that it accurately portrays their testimony.22 But not every detail needs to be exact—it merely must be similar enough to represent the testimony accurately.23 It need not even be created by the testifying witness.24 Thus, a simplified model may be used (in the trial judge’s discretion) despite not having every detail. For instance, in People v. Richardson, the prosecution could present hand-drawn diagrams of the basement where officers were involved in a standoff with the defendant. The appellate court found no error, even when different officers had slightly different diagrams.25

Probative-Versus-Prejudicial Balancing

Even if an exhibit is relevant and properly authenticated, it may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of “unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”26 This standard strongly favors admission of material evidence.27 The purpose of the exhibit may also be a factor in this analysis.

Balancing for substantive exhibits. Substantive exhibits are the least likely category to be excluded under CRE 403. This is because substantive exhibits usually carry the highest probative value, as they consist of the actual items alleged to be involved in the litigation. But that does not mean that they will never be excluded. For example, take a homicide case involving a child who was allegedly repeatedly stabbed. The medical examiner has testified that she conducted an autopsy, identified the body, and established the cause of death. And the defense disputes none of these findings. If the prosecution wanted to introduce autopsy photos, they might be rebuffed. While relevant (they tend to help prove the death of the alleged victim) and authentic (if the medical examiner laid a proper foundation), they may be so horrific and upsetting that they could result in the jury seeking retribution against someone rather than following the law. Likewise, when the facts they show are uncontested, it would waste time and be needlessly cumulative.28

But this test does not permit excluding evidence solely because it is highly prejudicial. After all, the entire point of evidence is to be prejudicial to the other side’s case (otherwise it is not relevant). Instead, the value of the evidence would have to be substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. If the value is only slightly outweighed by the risk, the evidence must be admitted.

Balancing for demonstrative exhibits. Demonstrative exhibits have the same balancing test as substantive exhibits. Yet because the exhibits used for demonstrative purposes are not the ones actually involved in the alleged acts, applying the balancing test may differ, as there may be ways to tailor the exhibit in a way that mitigates any unfair prejudice. In other words, there are likely more alternative methods of proof that can be used, which thereby suggests that the item may have more unfair prejudice than if it were substantive.

For example, imagine a civil case where an expert wishes to introduce a computer simulation. That simulation shows the expert’s assessment of how the car accident occurred. The simulation is relevant and authentic. But the simulation contains overlaid images of the child victim’s gruesome injuries. No party disputes that the injuries actually happened, but the defense argues that the inclusion of the images in the simulation inflames the jury’s emotions. And it is clear from the record that the plaintiff’s expert could have made the same exhibit with generic body outlines. Using the more generic outlines would not have impaired the evidentiary value of the exhibit. There, the court might find that the inclusion of the gruesome images creates unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs the probative value of the exhibit compared to alternatives.

Balancing for illustrative aids. Illustrative aids are not evidence and thus should not be considered to fall under the balancing test established by CRE 403. Rather, their use is controlled by CRE 611. But CRE 611 embodies similar considerations to those underlying CRE 403, and both rules help protect the defendant’s interest in a fair trial. The court’s ability to keep out information when its value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under CRE 403 (for substantive and demonstrative exhibits) is mirrored in CRE 611’s requirement for the court to exercise reasonable control to “make the . . . presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth.”29 Unfair prejudice arises only when it redirects the ascertainment of truth toward a different purpose—so ensuring an illustrative exhibit does not do so is covered by CRE 611. Likewise, the ability of the court to exclude evidence under CRE 403 under “considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence” is mirrored in CRE 611’s ability of the court to “exercise reasonable control . . . so as to . . . avoid needless consumption of time.”

But no matter the rule used for screening purposes, illustrative aids are more likely to be prohibited than other types of exhibits when there are concerns about unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. This is because illustrative aids have no independent probative value: their sole purpose is to assist the fact finder, and the underlying information must already be presented in some other form. This is not necessarily the case for substantive or demonstrative exhibits. Consequently, both the potential value of using an illustrative aid and the detrimental impact of excluding it are generally much lower than for other categories of exhibits.

A Short Note on Hearsay

Assuming an exhibit is relevant, authentic, and not excluded based on fairness concerns (whether based on CRE 403 for substantive and demonstrative exhibits or CRE 611 for illustrative aids), the exhibit is still subject to the remaining rules of evidence, including hearsay. While a complete analysis of the rules of hearsay is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to point out that the rules of hearsay apply only to substantive and demonstrative exhibits. Because an illustrative aid is not evidence but used to assist understanding, the hearsay rules do not apply. However, to the extent that the aid relies on hearsay and presents it to the fact finder, it would likely be barred as it would confuse the issues and mislead the fact finder, which would violate CRE 611’s requirement that the presentation be effective for the ascertainment of the truth. So the content on the aid must be tied to admitted evidence (including testimony).

The Impact of the Categorization of an Exhibit Beyond Its Use in the Courtroom

The importance of properly categorizing an exhibit by use goes beyond the process for admitting or presenting it. The classification also affects (1) whether additional instructions should be given, (2) what can be reviewed by the jury during deliberations, and (3) the way the record should be kept to permit appellate review.

Is It Evidence?

A critical question is whether the exhibit constitutes evidence. Substantive and demonstrative exhibits can be admitted and received into evidence. Illustrative aids, by contrast, are not evidence; they are mere aids to help understanding and cannot be received into the evidentiary record.

Instructions to the Jury

As a practical consideration, is there anything special that the trial court does differently based on which class of exhibit is being used?

When the trial court permits an illustrative aid to be used, it should provide a limiting instruction to ensure that the exhibit is used correctly. Colorado’s model jury instructions provide a proposed instruction that can be given to the jury when using an exhibit with a limited purpose.30 Yet there is no proposed instruction that is specific to illustrative aids as defined by this article. That said, it may be appropriate for the court to use a different instruction because the exhibit is not being admitted into evidence. Using the general instruction might confuse juries and lead them to believe that the illustrative aid may be considered evidence. At least two states have such instructions.31 Florida’s model instruction provides two options: one for general use and another for aids based on disputed assumptions.32 The Washington pattern instruction is perhaps most useful for Colorado courts. It reads:

I am allowing [this exhibit] [exhibit number____] to be used for illustrative purposes only. This means that its status is different from that of other exhibits in this case. This exhibit is one [party’s] [witness’s] [summary] [explanation] [illustration] [interpretation], offered to assist you in understanding and evaluating the evidence in the case. Keep in mind that actual evidence is the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits that are admitted into evidence. [Because it is not itself evidence, this exhibit will not go with you to the jury room when you deliberate. The lawyers and witnesses may use the exhibit now and later on during this trial.]33

Use by the Jury

Closing arguments are now complete, and the case has been submitted to the jury. But what can they look at? Courts vary on this issue.34 But, in Colorado, the general rule of thumb is that the trial court has jurisdiction to determine the extent of the jury’s access to an exhibit.35 The trial court must assess whether the exhibit will aid the jury to properly consider the case, and even if so, whether the jury’s use of it will unfairly prejudice a party.36 But the case that established this general proposition of discretion was looking at an exhibit admitted for substantive purposes. The decision did not distinguish between exhibits received into evidence and those that were not. Thus, the scope of discretion to decide jury access may differ based on the category of evidence—an issue that may warrant clarification.

Recordkeeping

Substantive and demonstrative exhibits should continue to be handled as they have traditionally been for recordkeeping purposes. That said, illustrative aids require some clarification. While illustrative aids are not evidence, their use is nonetheless subject to potential error. Thus, the trial court should preserve, to the extent possible, such aids for appellate review.

To that end, such aids should be marked and retained by the court when possible. Yet sometimes the nature of these aids does not permit the court to retain them. When that is the case, the court should make a clear record about the aid’s content and use, and attempt to preserve the aid. This might, in an appropriate case, mean that the court orders images or videos taken of the aid or act to preserve it for review.

Summary

Overall, it is essential to distinguish between substantive exhibits, demonstrative exhibits, and illustrative aids. The category to which an exhibit belongs determines whether it is evidence, which screening tools apply, and how the exhibit can be used. Substantive exhibits—the actual items directly involved in the dispute—carry independent probative value and may be admitted into evidence for the fact finder’s review. Demonstrative exhibits—such as exemplars, reconstructions, or simulations—also carry independent probative value, but that value is contingent on additional foundation that is unnecessary for substantive exhibits. Finally, illustrative aids carry no evidentiary value. Their sole purpose is to assist the fact finder in following the testimony.

Consistently using the definitions outlined in this article helps clarify the use of the exhibit and provides a framework for the trial court to determine whether to permit the use of an exhibit. While Colorado still has work to do to clarify these categories, perhaps this article will spur more doctrinal clarity from the appellate courts and the adoption of a Colorado-specific version of Fed. R. Evid. 107.

---

Explore This Issue

Democratizing Justice

Access to Justice

By Lois R. Lupica and Charlotte Goodenow

Dea M. Lindsey

Diversity on the Bench Spotlight

By Cynthia D. Mares and Mariana Vielma

Betrayed by a Dream

Historical Perspectives

By Frank Gibbard

Related Topics

Notes