Final answer:
The admissibility of summary evidence requires that the underlying documents be made available to the opposing party under the principles of disclosure and the right to cross-examine. The testimony's credibility and alignment with expert consensus also influence evidence acceptability. Failure to meet these standards can lead to summary evidence being ruled inadmissible.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question concerns the admissibility of summary evidence in a legal setting, specifically when the underlying documents are not made available to the opposing party. In the adversarial judicial system, both parties are entitled to access relevant information through a process called disclosure. With this in mind, if the proponent of the summary evidence does not provide the underlying writings, recordings, or photographs for examination or copying, the summary may not be admissible because it violates the principles of disclosure and the opposing party's rights to cross-examine evidence in accordance with the Sixth Amendment.
Furthermore, the admissibility of evidence may also depend on the credibility and expertise of the person supplying the testimony, consensus among experts in the field, and whether the testimony aligns with the consensus. An expert's potential bias is also a critical factor in determining the reliability and acceptability of their testimony. In relation to constitutional rights, the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination is seen as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which can similarly impact the admissibility of evidence.
In summary, for a piece of summary evidence to be admissible, the party presenting it must adhere to the legal standards of evidence disclosure, ensure that expert testimony is credible and unbiased, and respect the constitutional rights outlined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.