Court blunders: photocopy a faithful reproduction

Sometimes I commit blunders in courtroom proceedings.
This is a normal thing.
I noticed a blunder I committed while reviewing the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) of the proceedings in a case I am handling.
Here is a portion of the TSN:
"Court:
Atty. Dejaresco, please go over the document and manifest if the xerox copy is a faithful reproduction of the original. So that we can mark the xerox copy in lieu of the original.
Atty Djearesco:
We manifest your honor, that the photocopy appears to be a faithful reproduction of the original."
"The photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original"?
In what instance would it occur that a photocopy is not a faithful reproduction of the original?
There could be such an instance, but it would defeat the purpose of photocopying, right?
The photocopy was invented for purposes of "faithful reproduction" of originals, so that orginal copies of documents can be multiplied in as many copies, to save time and effort and money.
The photocopier was invented so that one need not make many originals.
Therefore, I think the proper way of saying it is that:
"The identical copy your honor is a faithful reproduction of the original."
To say that the "photocopy is a faithful copy of the original", is a redundancy, or, stating the obvious.