![handle is hein.journals/tlro87 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE SOCIAL MEDIUM: WHY THE AUTHENTICATION
BAR SHOULD BE RAISED FOR SOCIAL MEDIA
EVIDENCE
Colin Miller* & Charles White**
I. INTRODUCTION
Tiffany Parker's trial started and ended with Facebook. On December 2, 2011,
Parker fought with Sheniya Brown over Facebook messages regarding a mutual love
interest.' Later that night, Parker allegedly posted entries on her Facebook page
containing content such as bet tht [sic] bitch didnt [sic] think [I] was going to see her
ass . .. bet she wont [sic] inbox me no more, #caughtthatbitch.2 After the jury rejected
Parker's claim of self-defense and convicted her of second-degree assault, the sole
basis for her appeal was that the prosecution failed to properly authenticate the
Facebook entries as ones she had authored.3
In addressing the issue, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that courts have
applied two conflicting approaches regarding the authentication of social media
evidence. Most courts apply a traditional authentication standard based on the
assumption that the risk of forgery exists with any evidence.' Other courts, however,
impose a higher authentication bar based on forgery concerns unique to social media
evidence. This Essay argues against the majority approach and in favor of a more
stringent authentication standard for social media evidence.
II. AUTHENTICATION FRAMEWORK
Before a party can introduce evidence, it must first provide some indication that
the evidence is what the party claims it to be, i.e., it must authenticate the evidence. For
example, a prosecutor seeking to introduce a confession note allegedly written by the
defendant must first present evidence that the defendant in fact wrote the letter.
According to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a),
To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.6
* Associate Dean for Faculty Development & Associate Professor, University of South Carolina School of
Law; Blog Editor, EvidenceProf Blog: http://lawprofessors.typepad.con/evidenceprof/.
*Student, University of South Carolina School ofLaw; J.D. expected, 2015.
1. Parker v. State, 85 A.3d 682, 683 (Del. 2014).
2. Id. at 684.
3. Id.
4. Id. at 686.
5. Id.
6. FED. R. EvID. 901(a).
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/tlro87&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most