Tag:Admissibility

Key Insight: Court found that Google Earth satellite image was not hearsay because it makes no assertion and also found that ?[a] tack placed by the Google Earth program and automatically labeled with GPS coordinates isn?t? hearsay? because the ?relevant assertion isn?t made by a person? its made by the Google Earth program? and therefore, there is no statement as defined by the hearsay rule (where the rule applies ?only to out-of-court statements? and where ?it defines a statement as ?a person?s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct?); however, ?[i]f the tack is place d manually and then labeled . . . its classic hearsay?

Nature of Case: Illegal re-entry into the U.S.A.

Electronic Data Involved: Google Earth image and tack

Key Insight: Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting screen shots from Defendant?s ex-boyfriend?s Facebook account where the appellate court determined that Defendant?s admission that she was ?Meka Rochelle? – the at-issue commenter shown in the screen shots – and admissions that she authored one of the comments and that she was the person depicted in the photos ?sufficiently tie[d] her to the comments and the photos? and that Defendant?s claim that she did not recall making the comments went to weight , not admissibility

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media (Facebook)

Key Insight: Court said that it was clear that the defendant?s name on a Facebook profile did not suffice to show that he authored the Facebook messages, but what did authenticate them were the ?peculiar circumstances? of the case, including a Facebook message that contained the same three digits of a phone number that was used to text victim and arrange a meeting at which the defendant was arrested. Court also found that the fact that the defendant went alone to an agreed location twice after the sender of text messages agreed to do so, with a phone in his possession that had the same number as had been used to communicate with the victim, was sufficient to authenticate that the defendant was the author of the text messages.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Social media (Facebook), Text Messages

Key Insight: Because the relevancy and admissibility of the Facebook messages depended on their being authored by the juvenile, the judge was required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile authored them; while the evidence was sufficient to support the judge’s conclusion that the Facebook messages were authored by the juvenile, as the juvenile?s actions served as a basis for concluding that the records were authentic, the better practice would have been to instruct the jurors that, in order to consider the Facebook messages as evidence of the statements contained therein, they first needed to find by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile was the author

Nature of Case: Juvenile court matter in which juvenile was adjudicated delinquent

Electronic Data Involved: Social networking Internet website messages

Key Insight: Court reversed conviction and remanded for new trial based on error in admission of text messages found on Blackberry in Defendant?s possession at the time of his arrest where the State argued that ownership of the Blackberry could be inferred and failed to establish that at-issue text messages were authored by the defendant, which in turn, negated the state?s arguments for admitting the outgoing text messages as well: ?There was no evidence that Appellant owned the BlackBerry or, more importantly, authored the messages. The fact that Appellant possessed the phone at the time of arrest is insufficient by itself to establish that Appellant authored text messages sent hours or days earlier. Because the State failed to establish that the text messages were authored by Appellant, the outgoing messages were not admissible as admissions by a party opponent and, thus, the incoming messages were not admissible under any identified exception to the hearsay rule.?

Nature of Case: Drug conviction

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages from Blackberry

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in admitting cell phone records or the content of text messages exchanged between Chewning and girlfriend (who pleaded guilty to murdering her mother) on the day of murder, as records were admissible as computer-generated records not requiring hearsay analysis, and, alternatively, as hearsay admissible under business records exception, text messages were admissible under exception for party and adoptive admissions, and authentication of records and texts was achieved through testimony of Verizon Wireless records custodian; further, court did not err in permitting prosecutor and detective to read aloud certain portions of texts during trial or in permitting the limited interpretation of abbreviations and misspellings provided by the readers

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone records, text messages

Key Insight: Court evaluated various emails and concluded that trial court did not err when it admitted them into evidence as they were properly authenticated by direct or circumstantial evidence; nor did court err when it accepted detective as an expert in digital forensic examination

Nature of Case: Criminal case in which defendant was convicted of electronic mail harassment and other offenses

Electronic Data Involved: Email