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

Facebook Post Authenticated by Its Content, Timing, Appended Name, Witness Testimony She Recognizes Page as Alleged Author’s & Fact Page Is Password Protected — There Are as Many Ways to Try a Case as There Are Trial Lawyers (Good Quote)

Download PDF

State v. Fawver, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. June 9, 2015):

Corey Fawver challenges his convictions for first degree burglary and second degree assault, alleging both that his counsel's performance was flawed and the evidence did not support the assault conviction. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

The incident in question arose after Mr. Fawver was forcefully thrown out of a New Year's Party at the residence of Christopher Pierce in Deer Park. Pierce punched and pushed Fawver out of the event in the early hours of January 1, 2013. Fawver left on foot and texted a friend that he had been "jumped" at the party.

Three friends arrived in a truck to pick up Fawver; they were followed in another car by two other men. The six men drove in the two vehicles back to Pierce's residence, arriving around 3:00 a.m. Several of the men, armed with baseball bats, [*2]  entered the residence and a melee ensued. Many of the partygoers fought back against the invaders. Two of them identified Fawver as being among the group wielding baseball bats.

Pierce eventually was discovered outside, bleeding from head and face injuries. Among his injuries, he was discovered to have subdural hematomas and star-shaped skull fracture consistent with a blunt force injury. Pierce, who did not want to cooperate with investigators, was found to have a blood alcohol level of .17. Fawver, who was interviewed by police three months after the incident, told them that he also had been very intoxicated that evening.

Mr. Fawver and another man eventually were jointly charged with first degree burglary and second degree assault; each charge also was alleged to have been committed with a deadly weapon other than a firearm. The charging theory on the assault count was that the two men had assaulted Pierce "with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a baseball bat." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1-2. Mr. Fawver's matter proceeded to a separate jury trial without the co-defendant.

Detective Michael Drapeau testified that he "screen grabbed" images from the Facebook page of Mr. Corey Fawver. One posting, shared with the jury, was [*3]  from January 1, 2013. Mr. Fawver's name and picture accompanied the post. The post was admitted as an exhibit without objection. It read: "Wow What a fun Night ppl [people] in dp [Deer Park] are not bad as they think they are." Exhibit 1, see Report of Proceedings (RP) at 140.

The defense presented evidence that Mr. Fawver had not wanted to return to the scene with his friends and had not wielded a weapon. Mr. Fawver did not testify. Defense counsel argued the case to the jury on a theory that his client reluctantly had been present but had not taken part in the fight. The jury was instructed, in relevant part, that to convict Mr. Fawver of second degree assault, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he "assaulted Christopher Pierce with a deadly weapon." CP at 63. The jury also was instructed on the definition of a "deadly weapon" and on accomplice liability. CP at 67, 69.

The jury convicted Mr. Fawver on both counts and also concluded that the crimes were committed with a deadly weapon. Given Mr. Pierce's active participation in the offense, the court imposed an exceptional sentence below the standard range of 3 months to be served consecutively to the 36 months required by the deadly weapon enhancements. [*4]  Mr. Fawver then timely appealed to this court. The State did not cross appeal the exceptional sentence.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Fawver's appeal challenges both his counsel's performance and the evidence supporting the assault conviction. We address the two issues in the order noted.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Mr. Fawver first alleges that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by not objecting to the Facebook post and by not seeking an

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

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

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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