Six questions the courtroom asks — mapped, statically.

1. Is there a statement by a person (spoken, written, or asserted by conduct)?

If yes: continue to question 2 · If no: → Not hearsay at all — no statement, or the statement is the live testimony itself. The other gates still apply.

2. Was the statement made outside the current testimony?

If yes: continue to question 3 · If no: → Not hearsay at all — no statement, or the statement is the live testimony itself. The other gates still apply.

3. Is it offered to prove the truth of what it asserts?

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: → Offered for a purpose other than its truth (notice, effect on the listener). Purpose limits are commonly policed — expect the question.

4. Does § 90.801 classify it as nonhearsay — a qualifying prior statement or a party's own statement offered against them?

If yes: → The statute classifies it as nonhearsay. The remaining layers and gates still need their own answers. · If no: continue to question 5

5. Does a § 90.803 exception apply regardless of the declarant's availability (business records, excited utterance, the child-victim exception's own terms)?

If yes: continue to question 7 · If no: continue to question 6

6. Is the declarant unavailable AND does a § 90.804 exception apply?

If yes: continue to question 7 · If no: → No lane carried the layer — this is where hearsay objections commonly succeed.

7. Does the item contain ANOTHER statement layer (a message quoting a teacher; a report quoting a bystander)?

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: continue to question 8

8. Are the other gates — authentication, privilege, relevance, § 90.403 — independently satisfied?

If yes: → The hearsay gate is answered for every layer. That is ONE gate of five — never admissibility by itself. · If no: → Hearsay is answered but another gate is not — each gate runs separately.

1. Has the proponent stated exactly what the item is claimed to be (whose message, which account, what event)?●

If yes: continue to question 2 · If no: → Authentication cannot start until the claim is stated — 'it is a text from the other parent sent on this date' is a claim; 'here is a screenshot' is not.

2. Is the item self-authenticating under § 90.902 (certified records, the § 90.902(11) certification lane, official publications)?

If yes: continue to question 5 · If no: continue to question 3

3. Is there a witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics, a chain of custody, or system/process evidence supporting the claim?

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: → No showing connects the item to its claim — where authentication objections commonly succeed, especially for social and electronic material.

4. Is the item electronic, machine-generated, or alleged to be altered — the categories that commonly draw extra provenance questions?

If yes: continue to question 5 · If no: continue to question 6

5. Are the certification, notice, and original/duplicate requirements that apply to THIS lane satisfied?

If yes: continue to question 6 · If no: → The lane exists but its requirements are not yet met (a certification not obtained, notice not given). Commonly curable — before the hearing, not during it.

6. Are the other gates — hearsay, relevance, privilege, best evidence, § 90.403 — independently satisfied?

If yes: → The authentication gate is answered. One gate of five. · If no: → Authenticated but another gate is open — each runs separately.

1. Does the evidence tend to prove or disprove a fact that matters in THIS case (a best-interest factor, an income figure, an element of the claim)?●

If yes: continue to question 2 · If no: → However dramatic, it does not bear on an issue in this case — the first gate closes.

2. Does the inference depend on another fact being established first?

If yes: continue to question 3 · If no: continue to question 4

3. Is there proof of that connecting fact, or a stated plan to connect it?

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: → The inference hangs on an unproven connector — courts commonly want the connection stated before the item lands.

4. Is the probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or needless cumulative presentation (§ 90.403's own terms)?

If yes: continue to question 5 · If no: continue to question 6

5. Can a narrower use — fewer exhibits, a trimmed excerpt, a limited purpose — reduce the prejudice?

If yes: continue to question 6 · If no: → Relevant but excluded on the weighing — the judgment call § 90.403 assigns to the court alone.

6. Are the other gates independently satisfied?

If yes: → Relevance survives, weighing survives. One gate of five. · If no: → Relevant but another gate is open — each runs separately.

1. Is the point to prove the CONTENTS of a writing, recording, or photograph (what the message said, what the photo shows)?§ 90.952

If yes: continue to question 2 · If no: → Article X is not in play — a witness describing what they saw is not proving a document's contents.

2. Is an original available and usable — the device, the account, the negative, the file? (For computer data, § 90.951(3) makes accurate readable output an original.)§ 90.951

If yes: → The original answers the gate. Keep it that way — do not delete the thread after the hearing is scheduled. · If no: continue to question 3

3. Is a duplicate available — a counterpart that accurately reproduces the original (an export, an accurate screenshot, a copy)?§ 90.951

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: continue to question 5

4. Is there a genuine dispute about the duplicate's authenticity or fairness?§ 90.953

If yes: continue to question 5 · If no: → The duplicate commonly serves to the same extent — § 90.953's own rule.

5. Is one of § 90.954's no-original grounds in play at all?§ 90.954

If yes: continue to question 6 · If no: → No original, no qualifying duplicate, no established ground — where best-evidence objections commonly succeed.

6. Is a listed ground actually established — lost or destroyed without bad faith, unobtainable by process, in the opponent's hands with notice, or not related to a controlling issue?●§ 90.954

If yes: → A no-original ground is established and other proof of contents may be received — with the burden fights that entails. · If no: → No original, no qualifying duplicate, no established ground — where best-evidence objections commonly succeed.

1. Is one of Florida's recognized privileges claimed — lawyer-client, psychotherapist, spousal, DV advocate, clergy (Article V lists them)?●

If yes: continue to question 2 · If no: → No recognized privilege fits — the other gates still run.

2. Was the communication within the privilege's protected scope, and is the person claiming it a holder?

If yes: continue to question 3 · If no: → Outside the protected scope or claimed by a non-holder — where privilege claims commonly fail.

3. Was confidentiality maintained — only necessary participants involved?

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: continue to question 5

4. Does a statutory exception open it (each privilege lists its own)?

If yes: → An exception opens the privilege — the fights are about which one and how far. · If no: continue to question 6

5. Was the disclosure compelled or made without an opportunity to claim the privilege (§ 90.508's protection)?

If yes: continue to question 6 · If no: → Waiver is in play — voluntary disclosure of a significant part can end the protection. A lawyer question in every case.

6. Has the privilege been voluntarily waived (§ 90.507 — voluntary disclosure of a significant part)?

If yes: → Waiver is in play — voluntary disclosure of a significant part can end the protection. A lawyer question in every case. · If no: → The communication is protected. Handling it — logs, redaction, private review — is procedure counsel runs.

1. Has the item been disclosed and handled per the case's pretrial order and exhibit procedures?

If yes: continue to question 2 · If no: → Exhibit-procedure gaps commonly get cured before the hearing — the pretrial order is the checklist.

2. Has relevance and every required foundation been established?

If yes: continue to question 3 · If no: → The foundation comes first; the other trees on this page are the map.

3. Was the item formally offered, and did the objecting side state a timely, specific ground?

If yes: continue to question 4 · If no: continue to question 5

4. Did the court clearly rule — and if the ruling was limited, is the limit on the record?

If yes: continue to question 6 · If no: → A definitive ruling on the record is what § 90.104 speaks to — an ambiguous 'moving on' preserves nothing.

5. If the evidence was excluded, was its substance made known through an offer of proof?

If yes: continue to question 6 · If no: → Excluded evidence with no offer of proof commonly leaves nothing to review — the statute's own architecture.

6. Is the record complete on the point — the offer, the ground, the ruling, the proffer where needed?

If yes: → The record carries the point. In a bench trial the judge who ruled also weighs — but the record is still what any later review reads. · If no: → Something is missing from the record — exactly the territory where counsel earns the fee in real time.