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 Facebook Messages through Circumstantial Evidence

Download PDF

United States v. Grant, 2011 CCA LEXIS 217 (Ct. Crim. Mil. App. Oct. 17, 2011):

A special court-martial composed of officer members convicted the appellant in accordance with his pleas of one specification of dereliction of duty by providing alcohol to an underage female and two specifications of a violation of a lawful general order, by wrongfully developing a personal, intimate, or sexual relationship with two Airmen who were technical trainees while he was a military training instructor, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892. The special court-martial panel also found the appellant guilty of making a false official statement to detectives, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 907. The adjudged and approved sentence included a reprimand, reduction to the grade of E-4, and a bad-conduct discharge.

The appellant raises four issues on appeal: *** (4) whether the military judge violated Mil. R. Evid. 901 by finding that the testimony of Airman (Amn) DM was sufficient to authenticate Facebook messages purportedly sent by the appellant and received by her.***

Facebook Messages

The appellant asks that we set aside the finding of guilty on Specification 1 of Charge II or, in the alternative, set aside the bad-conduct discharge for what he asserts was error by the military judge in the admission of copies of Facebook messages, in violation of Mil. R. Evid. 901.

We review a military judge's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323, 335 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (citations omitted); United States v. Robles-Ramos, 47 M.J. 474, 476 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review for admissibility of uncharged misconduct); United States v. Ayala, 43 M.J. 296, 298 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review for motions to suppress). "[A] military judge abuses his discretion if his findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect." Ayala, 43 M.J. at 298.

"The 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." Mil. R. Evid. 901(a). "[A]uthentication is a component of relevancy (evidence admitted as something can have no probative value unless that is what it really is)." United States v. Blanchard, 48 M.J. 306, 309 (C.A.A.F. 1998). The "[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances" may be sufficient to conform with the requirements of Mil. R. Evid. 901. See Mil. R. Evid. 901(b)(4).

The Facebook messages introduced in this case contained the name "Mike Grant" next to each entry purportedly entered by the appellant. Each message also contained a photograph of the appellant wearing his military uniform. Amn DM testified that she knew the messages were from the appellant, "Because all of his pictures were on there. He had added us right after like -- we had like just seen him at the BX and then we went to my room and I checked my Facebook, and he had just added us. And he talked about like our flight and stuff and he gave me his number on Facebook." She further testified that she "texted" the appellant at the phone number he gave her via the Facebook messages and corresponded with him that way as well. Finally, she testified that she and the appellant made plans and she relied on the information the appellant gave her for those plans via the Facebook messages.

After review of the messages admitted and the testimony regarding the messages, we find no violation of Mil. R. Evid. 901 and conclude the military judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the Facebook messages.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

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