New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Authentication of Chat Room Evidence

Download PDF

From State v. Bell, 2009 Ohio 2335; 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2112 (Ohio Ct. App. May 18, 2009):

[A]ppellant argues that the trial court erred by admitting printouts of the alleged on-line conversations and e-mail messages between T.W., one of the teenage victims, and appellant "that took place through MySpace" because the disputed documents were never properly authenticated. In support of this argument, appellant apparently claims the printouts of the disputed on-line conversations and e-mails were "business records" under Evid.R. 803(6), and therefore, not admissible because they "were never properly authenticated by anyone from MySpace." However, based on our review of the record, and contrary to appellant's claim, the printouts of the alleged on-line conversations and e-mails between T.W. and appellant are not "business records" under Evid.R. 803(6) as they are not "records of [the] regularly conducted activity" of Fox Interactive Media, Co., the immediate owner and operator of MySpace.

***[T]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Evid.R. 901(A). To establish the documents are what the proponent claims them to be, namely computer printouts of conversations between the victim and appellant, the "proponent need not prove beyond any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be." ... Instead, the proponent must only demonstrate a "reasonable likelihood" that the evidence is authentic.... Such evidence may be supplied by the testimony of a witness with knowledge. Evid.R. 901(B)(1)....

In this case, T.W. testified on direct examination, as well as during his lengthy cross-examination, that the disputed documents were, in fact, computer printouts of the alleged on-line conversations and e-mails between him and, who he believed to be, appellant. T.W. also testified as to how he was able to retrieve and print these documents by logging into his MySpace account and clicking on the "messages button." The trial court, in its decision to admit the computer printouts, found the documents were properly authenticated and that any concern regarding the documents, i.e. whether they were fabricated by T.W., merely went to the weight the jury could give to the evidence. We find no error in this conclusion. As a result, the trial court did not err, let alone abuse its discretion, in admitting the computer printouts of the alleged on-line conversations and e-mails because they were properly authenticated by a witness with knowledge as required by Evid.R. 901 prior to their admission at trial. See [State v. Bettis, Butler App. No. CA2004-02-034, 2005 Ohio 2917, at p. 29; State v. Brantley, 2008 Ohio 281 at pp. 35-36].

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice