5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

19A.3d415(2011) 419Md.343

AntoineLevarGRIFFIN v. STATEofMaryland.
No.74,SeptemberTerm,2010. CourtofAppealsofMaryland. April28,2011.
416 *416KatherineP.Rasin,Asst.PublicDefender(PaulB.DeWolfe,PublicDefender,Baltimore,MD),onbrief,forpetitioner/crossrespondent.

RobertTaylor,Jr.,Asst.Atty.Gen.(DouglasF.Gansler,Atty.Gen.ofMaryland,Baltimore,MD),onbrief,forrespondent/crosspetitioner. ArguedbyBELL,C.J.,HARRELL,BATTAGLIA,GREENE,MURPHY,ADKINSandBARBERA,JJ. BATTAGLIA,J. Inthiscase,wearetaskedwithdeterminingtheappropriatewaytoauthenticate,forevidentialpurposes,electronicallystoredinformationprinted

417

fromasocial*417networkingwebsite,[1]inparticular,MySpace.[2] AntoineLevarGriffin,Petitioner,seeksreversalofhisconvictionsintheCircuitCourtforCecilCounty,contendingthatthetrialjudgeabusedhis discretioninadmitting,withoutproperauthentication,whattheStateallegedwereseveralpagesprintedfromGriffin'sgirlfriend'sMySpaceprofile.[3] TheCourtofSpecialAppealsdeterminedthatthetrialjudgedidnotabusehisdiscretion,Griffinv.State,192Md.App.518,995A.2d791(2010), andwegrantedGriffin'sPetitionforWritofCertiorari,415Md.607,4A.3d512(2010),toconsiderthetwoquestions,whichwehaverephrased: 1.DidthetrialcourterrinadmittingapageprintedfromaMySpaceprofileallegedtobethatofPetitioner'sgirlfriend?[[4]] 2.Didthetrialcourterrinallowingtheprosecutortodefinereasonabledoubtincorrectlyoverdefenseobjection,includingsaying"it meansthis,doyouhaveagoodreasontobelievethatsomebodyotherthanMr.GriffinwasthepersonthatshotDarvellGuest...I'm notaskingyouwhetheryoucanspeculateandcreatesomeconstructofhypotheticalpossibilitiesthatwouldhavesomebodyelsebe theshooter....I'maskingyouthequestion,doyouhaverightnowanyreason,anyrationalreasontobelievethatsomebodyotherthan hewastheshooterorgunman?"[[5]] TheStatepresentedaconditionalcrosspetition,whichwealsogranted,inwhichonequestionwasposed: 1.IsGriffin'schallengetotheprobativevalueoftheevidencepreservedforappellatereview?[[6]]

418

*418WeshallholdthatthepagesallegedlyprintedfromGriffin'sgirlfriend'sMySpaceprofilewerenotproperlyauthenticatedpursuanttoMaryland

Rule5901,[7]andshall,therefore,reversethejudgmentoftheCourtofSpecialAppealsandremandthecaseforanewtrial. Griffinwaschargedinnumerouscountswiththeshootingdeath,onApril24,2005,ofDarvellGuestatFerrari'sBarinPerryville,inCecilCounty. Duringhistrial,theStatesoughttointroduceGriffin'sgirlfriend's,JessicaBarber's,MySpaceprofiletodemonstratethat,priortotrial,Ms.Barber hadallegedlythreatenedanotherwitnesscalledbytheState.TheprintedpagescontainedaMySpaceprofileinthenameof"Sistasouljah," describinga23yearoldfemalefromPortDeposit,listingherbirthdayas"10/02/1983"andcontainingaphotographofanembracingcouple.The printedpagesalsocontainedthefollowingblurb: FREEBOOZY!!!!JUSTREMEMBERSNITCHESGETSTITCHES!!UKNOWWHOYOUARE!! WhenMs.BarberhadtakenthestandafterbeingcalledbytheState,shewasnotquestionedaboutthepagesallegedlyprintedfromherMySpace profile. Instead,theStateattemptedtoauthenticatethepages,asbelongingtoMs.Barber,throughthetestimonyofSergeantJohnCook,thelead investigatorinthecase.DefensecounselobjectedtotheadmissionofthepagesallegedlyprintedfromMs.Barber'sMySpaceprofile,becausethe Statecouldnotsufficientlyestablisha"connection"betweentheprofileandpostingandMs.Barber,andsubstantively,theStatecouldnotsaywith anycertaintythatthepurported"threat"hadanyimpactonthewitness'stestimony;thelatterargumentisnotbeforeus. DefensecounselwaspermittedtovoirdireSergeantCook,outsideofthepresenceofthejury,asfollows: [DefenseCounsel]:Howdoyouknowthatthisisher[MySpace]page?.... [SergeantCook]:ThroughthephotographofherandBoozyonthefront,throughthereferencetoBoozy,[]thereference[to]the children,and[]herbirthdateindicatedontheform.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

1/8

5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

[DefenseCounsel]:Howdoyouknowshesentit? [SergeantCook]:Ican'tsaythat.

419

[TheCourt]:IfailedIamsorry.Imisrepresented.Ifailedtorealizethereisaphotographthere.It'sintheblock*419thatsays "Sistasouljah,"andthenthere'saphotographofapersonthatlookslikeJessicaBarbertome. [DefenseCounsel]:Whenwasitsent? [SergeantCook]:ThatisaMySpacepage.Thatwasn'tparticularlysent.Thatisontheweb,andit'saccessibletowhoeverviews MySpace.Itisopentothepublic. [DefenseCounsel]:Iunderstandthat.Whendiditgetposted?[SergeantCook]:Theprintdateontheform,printedon12/05/06. [TheCourt]:Youcantellbylookingatitbecausethat'swhenhewenttoit. [DefenseCounsel]:Sothatwouldhavebeenafterthefirsttrial.Sohowcouldthatpossiblyaffect[thewitness]?Hesaiditwasbefore thefirsttrial. [TheCourt]:Onitsface,thereisnowaythatyoucanconcludethatonitsfacethisestablishesanythinginregardto[thewitness].What it'sbeingofferedfor,asIunderstandit,iscorroboration,consistencythatshe'smakingastatementinapublicforum,"snitchesget stitches."AndIguesstheargumentisgoingtobemadethatthat'sconsistentwithwhat[thewitness]said,thatshethreatenedhim. [AssistantState'sAttorney]:That'scorrect. [TheCourt]:It'sweak.Imean,thereisnoquestionit'sweak,butthat'swhatitisofferedfor. Thetrialjudge,thereafter,indicatedthathewouldpermitSergeantCooktotestifyinsupportofauthenticationoftheredactedportionofthepages printedfromMySpace,containingthephotograph"ofapersonthatlookslikeJessicaBarber"andthePetitioner,allegedlyknownas"Boozy," adjacenttoadescriptionofthewomanasa23yearoldfromPortDeposit,andtheblurb,stating"FREEBOOZY!!!!JUSTREMEMBERSNITCHES GETSTITCHES!!UKNOWWHOYOUARE!!" InlieuofSergeantCook'stestimony,whilemaintaininghisobjectiontotheadmissibilityoftheredactedMySpacepage,defensecounselagreedto thefollowingstipulation: Ifasked,SergeantCookwouldtestifythathewentontotheInternettothewebsiteknownasMySpace....[F]romthatsitehe downloadedsomeinformationofapostingthatsomeonehadputthere. ThatpostingcontainsaphotographwhichthewitnesswouldsayherecognizesasaphotographofJessica...Barber,whotestified,... thatsheisthedefendant'sliveinfiance;andthatitalsocontainsadateofbirth,towitOctober2nd,1983,whichthewitnesswould testifyisthedateofbirththatJessicaBarbergaveasherdateofbirth. Whentheexhibit,thedownload,comestoyou,youaregoingtoseethatithasagreatthatmostofitscontenthasbeenredacted;that is,blackedout.That'sbecausesomeofit,inmyjudgment,mighttendtobeinflammatorywithoutprovinganythingonewayorthe other.Thereisoneportionofitthatwillnotberedactedwhenitcomestoyou,andthisistheonlyportionofitwhichyoushould consider.Andyoucertainlyshouldnotspeculateastowhatanyoftheredactedportionsmaybe. Theportionthatwillnotberedactedsays,justremembersnitchesgetstitches.Youwillseethat.Thephraseis,justremembersnitches getstitches....And...thewitnesswouldtestifythatthedateitwasretrievedwas...December5,2006.

420

WhethertheMySpaceprintoutrepresentsthatwhichitpurportstobe,notonlyaMySpaceprofilecreatedbyMs.Barber,*420butalsouponwhich shehadposted,"FREEBOOZY!!!!JUSTREMEMBERSNITCHESGETSTITCHES!!UKNOWWHOYOUARE!!,"istheissuebeforeus. Withrespecttosocialnetworkingwebsitesingeneral,wehavealreadyhadoccasion,inIndependentNewspapers,Inc.v.Brodie,407Md.415,424 n.3,966A.2d432,438n.3(2009),todescribethosesitesas"sophisticatedtoolsofcommunicationwheretheuservoluntarilyprovidesinformation thattheuserwantstosharewithothers."[8]Anumberofsocialnetworkingwebsites,suchasMySpace,enablemembers"tocreateonline`profiles,' whichareindividualwebpagesonwhichmembers[can]postphotographs,videos,andinformationabouttheirlivesandinterests."Doev.MySpace, Inc.,474F.Supp.2d843,845(W.D.Tex.2007). AnyonecancreateaMySpaceprofileatnocost,aslongasthatpersonhasanemailaddressandclaimstobeovertheageoffourteen: MySpaceuserscreateprofilesbyfillingoutquestionnairelikewebforms.Usersarethenabletoconnecttheirprofilestothoseofother usersandtherebyformcommunities.MySpaceprofilescontainseveralinformationalsections,knownas"blurbs."Theseincludetwo standardblurbs:"AboutMe"and"WhoI'dLiketoMeet."Usersmaysupplementthoseblurbswithadditionalsectionsabouttheir interests,generaladditionaldetails,andotherpersonalinformation.MySpaceprofilesalsoincorporateseveralmultimediafeatures.For instance,usersmaypostphotos,music,videos,andweblogstotheirpages. RichardM.Guo,StrangerDangerandtheOnlineSocialNetwork,23BerkeleyTech.L.J.617,621(2008)(footnotesomitted).Afteraprofileis

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

2/8

5/31/12
withoutfurtherado:

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

established,theusermayinviteotherstoaccessherprofile,asa"friend,"whoiftheuseracceptsthebefriending,canaccessherprofilepages

Usersestablishvirtualcommunitiesbylinkingtheirprofilesinaprocessknownas"friending"or"connecting."Oneuserrequeststoadd anotherasafriend,andtherecipientmayeitheracceptorrejecttheinvitation.Iftherecipientaccepts,theprofilesarelinkedandthe connectedmembersaregenerallyabletoviewoneanother'sonlinecontentwithoutrestriction.Thenetworkcreatedbythelinking processallowsausertochatwithfriends,displaysupportforparticularcauses,"joininterestgroupsdedicatedtovirtuallyanytopic," andotherwise"hangout." NathanPetrashek,Comment,TheFourthAmendmentandtheBraveNewWorldofOnlineSocialNetworking,93Marq.L.Rev.1495,14991500 (20092010)(footnotesomitted).Althoughasocialnetworkingsitegenerallyrequiresauniqueusernameandpasswordfortheusertoboth establishaprofileandaccessit,postingonthesitebythosethatbefriendtheuserdoesnot.SeeSamanthaL.Miller,Note,TheFacebookFrontier: RespondingtotheChangingFaceofPrivacyontheInternet,97Ky.L.J.541,544(20082009);EricDanowitz,MySpaceInvasion:PrivacyRights, Libel,andLiability,28J.Juv.L.30,37(2007).
421 *421Theidentityofwhogeneratedtheprofilemaybeconfounding,because"apersonobservingtheonlineprofileofauserwithwhomtheobserver

isunacquaintedhasnoideawhethertheprofileislegitimate."Petrashek,93Marq.L.Rev.at1499n.16.Theconcernarisesbecauseanyonecan createafictitiousaccountandmasqueradeunderanotherperson'snameorcangainaccesstoanother'saccountbyobtainingtheuser'susername andpassword: Althoughitmayseemthat,ascreatorsofourownonlinesocialnetworkingprofiles,weareabletoconstructourownonlinepersona, thisisnotalwaysthecase.Thereisnolawthatpreventssomeonefromestablishingafakeaccountunderanotherperson'sname,so longasthepurposefordoingsoisnottodeceiveothersandgainsomeadvantage.Moreover,fragmentsofinformation,eithercrafted underourauthorityorfabricatedbyothers,areavailablebyperformingaGooglesearch...forever.Thus,onlinesocialnetworking posestwothreats:thatinformationmaybe(1)availablebecauseofone'sownroleasthecreatorofthecontent,or(2)generatedbya thirdparty,whetherornotitisaccurate. DavidHectorMontes,LivingOurLivesOnline:ThePrivacyImplicationsofOnlineSocialNetworking,JournalofLawandPolicyfortheInformation Society,Spring2009,at507,508.Forinstance,inonecircumstance,Sophos,aBostonbasedInternetsecuritycompany,createdaprofileforatoy frognamed"FreddiStaur,"andnearly200Facebook[9]userschosetoaddthefrogasa"friend."Miller,97Ky.L.J.at542.[10] ThepossibilityforuserabusealsoexistsonMySpace,asillustratedbyUnitedStatesv.Drew,259F.R.D.449(D.C.D.Cal.2009),inwhichLoriDrew,
422

amother,wasprosecutedundertheComputerFraudand*422AbuseAct,18U.S.C.1030,forcreatingaMySpaceprofileforafictitious16year oldmalenamed"JoshEvans."Drewhadcontactedaformerfriendofherdaughter's,MeganMeier,throughtheMySpacenetwork,usingtheJosh Evansscreennameorpseudonym,andbeganto"flirtwithheroveranumberofdays."Id.at452.Drewthenhad"Josh"informMeganthatheno longer"likedher"andthat"theworldwouldbeabetterplacewithoutherinit,"afterwhichMegankilledherself.Id.Thus,therelativeeasewithwhich anyonecancreatefictionalpersonasorgainunauthorizedaccesstoanotheruser'sprofile,withdeleteriousconsequences,istheDrewlesson. Thepotentialforfabricatingortamperingwithelectronicallystoredinformationonasocialnetworkingsite,thusposessignificantchallengesfromthe standpointofauthenticationofprintoutsofthesite,asinthepresentcase.Authentication,nevertheless,isgenerallygovernedbyMarylandRule5 901,whichprovides: (a)Generalprovision.Therequirementofauthenticationoridentificationasaconditionprecedenttoadmissibilityissatisfiedby evidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterinquestioniswhatitsproponentclaims. PotentialmethodsofauthenticationareillustratedinRule5901(b).ThemostgermanetothepresentinquiryareRules5901(b)(1)and5901(b)(4), whichstate: (b)Illustrations.Bywayofillustrationonly,andnotbywayoflimitation,thefollowingareexamplesofauthenticationoridentification conformingwiththerequirementsofthisRule:(1)Testimonyofwitnesswithknowledge.Testimonyofawitnesswithknowledgethatthe offeredevidenceiswhatitisclaimedtobe.[11] *** (4)Circumstantialevidence.Circumstantialevidence,suchasappearance,contents,substance,internalpatterns,location,orother distinctivecharacteristics,thattheofferedevidenceiswhatitisclaimedtobe. WeandourcolleaguesontheCourtofSpecialAppealshavehadtheopportunitytoapplythetenetsofRule5901(b)(4)toatoxicologyreport,State v.Bryant,361Md.420,761A.2d925(2000),torecordingsfrom911emergencycalls,Clarkv.State,188Md.App.110,981A.2d666(2009),and totextmessagesreceivedonthevictim'scellularphone,Dickensv.State,175Md.App.231,927A.2d32(2007),butneitherwenorourappellate brethrenheretoforehasconsideredtheRule'sapplicationtoauthenticatepagesprintedfromasocialnetworkingsite. Rather,weturnforassistancetothediscussioninLorrainev.MarkelAmericanInsuranceCo.,241F.R.D.534(D.Md.2007),whereinMaryland's ownMagistrateJudgePaulW.Grimm,arecognizedauthorityonevidentiaryissuesconcerningelectronicevidence,outlinedissuesregarding authenticationofelectronicallystoredinformation,inemail,websites,digitalphotographs,computergenerateddocuments,*423andinternet

423

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

3/8

5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

postings,etc.withrespecttoRule901oftheFederalRulesofEvidence: (a)GENERALPROVISION.Therequirementofauthenticationoridentificationasaconditionprecedenttoadmissibilityissatisfiedby evidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterinquestioniswhatitsproponentclaims. (b)ILLUSTRATIONS.Bywayofillustrationonly,andnotbywayoflimitation,thefollowingareexamplesofauthenticationor identificationconformingwiththerequirementsofthisrule: (1)TestimonyofWitnessWithKnowledge.Testimonythatamatteriswhatitisclaimedtobe. *** (4)DistinctiveCharacteristicsandtheLike.Appearance,contents,substance,internalpatterns,orotherdistinctivecharacteristics, takeninconjunctionwithcircumstances. RegardingRule901(a),JudgeGrimmiteratedinLorrainethatthe"requirementofauthenticationoridentificationasaconditionprecedentto admissibilityissatisfiedbyevidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterinquestioniswhatitsproponentclaims,"toinsuretrustworthiness. Id.at54142.JudgeGrimmrecognizedthatauthenticatingelectronicallystoredinformationpresentsamyriadofconcernsbecause"technology changessorapidly"andis"oftennewtomanyjudges."Id.at544.Moreover,the"complexity"or"novelty"ofelectronicallystoredinformation,withits potentialformanipulation,requiresgreaterscrutinyof"thefoundationalrequirements"thanlettersorotherpaperrecords,tobolsterreliability.Id.at 54344,quotingJackB.Weinstein&MargaretA.Berger,Weinstein'sFederalEvidence900.06[3](JosephM.McLaughlined.,MatthewBender2d ed.1997). Inthepresentcase,GriffinarguesthattheStatedidnotappropriately,forevidentiarypurposes,authenticatethepagesallegedlyprintedfrom JessicaBarber'sMySpaceprofile,becausetheStatefailedtoofferanyextrinsicevidencedescribingMySpace,aswellasindicatinghowSergeant Cookobtainedthepagesinquestionandadequatelylinkingboththeprofileandthe"snitchesgetstitches"postingtoMs.Barber.TheState countersthatthephotograph,personalinformation,andreferencestofreeing"Boozy"weresufficienttoenablethefinderoffacttobelievethatthe pagesprintedfromMySpacewereindeedMs.Barber's. WeagreewithGriffinanddisagreewiththeStateregardingwhetherthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretioninadmittingtheMySpaceprofileas appropriatelyauthenticated,withJessicaBarberasitscreatoranduser,aswellastheauthorofthe"snitchesgetstitches"posting,baseduponthe inadequatefoundationlaid.WedifferfromourcolleaguesontheCourtofSpecialAppeals,whogaveshortshrifttotheconcernthat"someoneother thantheallegedauthormayhaveaccessedtheaccountandpostedthemessageinquestion."Griffin,192Md.App.at542,995A.2dat805.While theintermediateappellatecourtdeterminedthatthepagesallegedlyprintedfromMs.Barber'sMySpaceprofilecontainedsufficientindiciaof reliability,becausetheprintout"featuredaphotographofMs.Barberand[Petitioner]inanembrace,"andalsocontainedthe"user'sbirthdateand identifiedherboyfriendas`Boozy,'"thecourtfailedtoacknowledgethepossibilityorlikelihoodthatanotherusercouldhavecreatedtheprofilein issueorauthoredthe"snitchesgetstitches"posting.Id.at543,995A.2dat806.

424

WeagreewithGriffinthatthetrialjudgeabusedhisdiscretioninadmitting*424theMySpaceevidencepursuanttoRule5901(b)(4),becausethe pictureofMs.Barber,coupledwithherbirthdateandlocation,werenotsufficient"distinctivecharacteristics"onaMySpaceprofiletoauthenticateits printout,giventheprospectthatsomeoneotherthanMs.Barbercouldhavenotonlycreatedthesite,butalsopostedthe"snitchesgetstitches" comment.Thepotentialforabuseandmanipulationofasocialnetworkingsitebysomeoneotherthanitspurportedcreatorand/oruserleadstoour conclusionthataprintoutofanimagefromsuchasiterequiresagreaterdegreeofauthenticationthanmerelyidentifyingthedateofbirthofthe creatorandhervisageinaphotographonthesiteinordertoreflectthatMs.Barberwasitscreatorandtheauthorofthe"snitchesgetstitches" language.[12] Insoholding,werecognizethatothercourts,calledupontoconsiderauthenticationofelectronicallystoredinformationonsocialnetworkingsites, havesuggestedgreaterscrutinybecauseoftheheightenedpossibilityformanipulationbyotherthanthetrueuserorposter.InCommonwealthv. Williams,456Mass.857,926N.E.2d1162(2010),theSupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusettsconsideredtheadmission,overthedefendant's objection,ofinstantmessagesawitnesshadreceived"atheraccountatMySpace."Id.at1171.Inthecase,thedefendantwasconvictedofthe shootingdeathofIzaahTucker,aswellasotheroffenses.Thewitness,AshleiNoyes,testifiedthatshehadspenttheeveningofthemurder socializingwiththedefendantandthathehadbeencarryingahandgun.Shefurthertestifiedthatthedefendant'sbrotherhadcontactedher"four timesonherMySpaceaccountbetweenFebruary9,2007,andFebruary12,2007,"urgingher"nottotestifyortoclaimalackofmemoryregarding theeventsofthenightofthemurder."Id.at1172.Attrial,Noyestestifiedthatthedefendant'sbrother,JesseWilliams,hadapictureofhimselfon hisMySpaceaccountandthathisMySpacescreennameorpseudonymwas"doit4it."Shetestifiedthatshehadreceivedthemessagesfrom Williams,andthedocumentprintedfromherMySpaceaccountindicatedthatthemessageswereinfactsentbyauserwiththescreenname*425 "doit4it,"depictingapictureofWilliams.Id. TheSupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusettsdeterminedthattherewasaninadequatefoundationlaidtoauthenticatetheMySpacemessages, becausetheStatefailedtoofferanyevidenceregardingwhohadaccesstotheMySpacepageandwhetheranotherauthor,otherthanWilliams, couldhavevirtuallypennedthemessages: AlthoughitappearsthatthesenderofthemessageswasusingWilliams'sMySpaceWeb"page,"thereisnotestimony(fromNoyesor another)regardinghowsecuresuchaWebpageis,whocanaccessaMySpaceWebpage,whethercodesareneededforsuch access,etc.AnalogizingaMySpace[message]toatelephonecall,awitness'stestimonythatheorshehasreceivedanincomingcall

425

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

4/8

5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

fromapersonclaimingtobe"A,"withoutmore,isinsufficientevidencetoadmitthecallasaconversationwith"A."Here,whilethe foundationaltestimonyestablishedthatthemessagesweresentbysomeonewithaccesstoWilliams'sMySpaceWebpage,itdidnot identifythepersonwhoactuallysentthecommunication.NorwasthereexperttestimonythatnooneotherthanWilliamscould communicatefromthatWebpage.Testimonyregardingthecontentsofthemessagesshouldnothavebeenadmitted. Id.at117273(citationsomitted).ThecourtemphasizedthattheStatefailedtodemonstrateasufficientconnectionbetweenthemessagesprinted fromWilliams'sallegedMySpaceaccountandWilliamshimself,withreference,forexample,toWilliams'suseofanexclusiveusernameand passwordtowhichonlyhehadaccess.ThecourtdeterminedthattheerrorinadmittingtheimproperlyauthenticatedMySpacemessages"didnot createasubstantiallikelihoodofamiscarriageofjustice,"however,and,therefore,didnotreverseWilliams'sconviction,becauseNoyes'stestimony wassignificantlyovershadowed"bythetestimonyoftwowitnessestothemurderwhoidentifiedWilliamsastheshooter."Id.at1173. Similarly,inPeoplev.Lenihan,30Misc.3d289,911N.Y.S.2d588(N.Y.Sup.Ct.2010),Lenihanchallengedhisseconddegreemurderconviction becausehewasnotpermittedtocrossexaminetwowitnessescalledbytheStateonthebasisofphotographshismotherhadprintedfrom MySpace,allegedlydepictingthewitnessesandthevictimmakinghandgesturesandwearingclothingthatsuggestedanaffiliationwiththe"Crips" gang.ThetrialjudgeprecludedLenihanfromconfrontingthewitnesseswiththeMySpacephotographs,reasoningthat"[i]nlightoftheabilityto `photoshop,'editphotographsonthecomputer,"Lenihancouldnotadequatelyauthenticatethephotographs.Id.at592. InUnitedStatesv.Jackson,208F.3d633(7thCir.2000),Jacksonwaschargedwithmailandwirefraudandobstructionofjusticeaftermakingfalse claimsofracialharassmentagainsttheUnitedParcelServiceinconnectionwithanelaborateschemeinwhichshesentpackagescontainingracial epithetstoherselfandtoseveralprominentAfricanAmericanspurportedlyfrom"racistelements"withinUPS.Id.at635.Attrial,Jacksonsoughtto introducewebsitepostingsfrom"theEuroAmericanStudentUnionandStormFront,"inwhichthewhitesupremacistgroupsgloatedabout Jackson'scaseandtookcreditfortheUPSmailings.Id.at637.Thecourtdeterminedthatthetrialjudgewasjustifiedinexcludingtheevidence becauseitlackedanappropriatefoundation,namelythatJacksonhadfailedtoshowthatthewebpostingsbythewhite*426supremacistgroups whotookresponsibilityfortheracistmailings"actuallywerepostedbythegroups,asopposedtobeingslippedontothegroups'websitesby Jacksonherself,whowasaskilledcomputeruser."Id.at638. TheStaterefersus,however,toIntheInterestofF.P.,878A.2d91(Pa.Super.Ct.2005),inwhichthePennsylvaniaintermediateappellatecourt consideredwhetherinstantmessageswereproperlyauthenticatedpursuanttoPennsylvaniaRuleofEvidence901(b)(4),providingthatadocument maybeauthenticatedbydistinctivecharacteristicsorcircumstantialevidence.Inthecase,involvinganassault,thevictim,Z.G.,testifiedthatthe defendanthadattackedhimbecausehebelievedthatZ.G.hadstolenaDVDfromhim.Thehearingjudge,overdefendant'sobjection,admitted instantmessagesfromauserwiththescreenname"Icp4Life30"toandbetween"WHITEBOYZ404."Id.at94.Z.G.testifiedthathisscreenname was"WHITEBOYZ404"andthathehadprintedtheinstantmessagesfromhiscomputer.Inthetranscriptoftheinstantmessages,moreover,Z.G. asked"whoisthis,"andthedefendantreplied,usinghisfirstname.Throughoutthetranscripts,thedefendantthreatenedZ.G.withphysicalviolence becauseZ.G."stoleoff[him]."Id.Onappeal,thecourtdeterminedthattheinstantmessageswereproperlyauthenticatedthroughthetestimonyof Z.G.andalsobecause"Icp4Life30"hadreferredtohimselfbyfirstname,repeatedlyaccusedZ.G.ofstealingfromhim,andreferencedthefactthat Z.G.hadtoldhighschooladministratorsaboutthethreats,suchthattheinstantmessagescontaineddistinctivecharacteristicsandcontentlinking themtothedefendant.IntheInterestofF.P.isunpersuasiveinthecontextofasocialnetworkingsite,becausetheauthenticationofinstant messagesbytherecipientwhoidentifieshisown"distinctivecharacteristics"andhishavingreceivedthemessages,isdistinguishablefromthe authenticationofaprofileandpostingprintedfromMySpace,byonewhoisneitheracreatornoruserofthespecificprofile.[13] Similarly,theStatereliesuponanunreportedopinion,Statev.Bell,2009WL1395857,2009OhioApp.LEXIS2112(OhioCt.App.2009),inwhich

426

427

thedefendant,convictedofmultiplecountsofchildmolestation,assertedthatthetrialjudge*427improperlyadmitted"onlineconversationsand emailmessages"onMySpace,purportedlyinvolvingBellandoneofhisvictims.Thedefendantarguedthatthemessageswerenotproperly authenticated,becausehislaptop"wasturnedonafteritwasseized,"whichheassertedalteredhundredsoffilesontheharddrive.Id.at*4,2009 OhioApp.LEXIS2112at*10.Theappellatecourtrejectedthatargumentbecausedefensecounselhadexpresslyapprovedtheadmissionofthe MySpaceemailsandmessages.Griffin,inthepresentcase,however,explicitlyobjectedtotheauthenticityoftheMySpaceprintout. Inthecasesubjudice,theMySpaceprintoutwasusedtoshowthatMs.Barberhadthreatenedakeywitness,whotheStatehadcharacterizedas "probablythemostimportantwitnessinthiscase;"theStatehighlightedtheimportanceofthe"snitchesgetstitches"postingduringclosing argument,asfollows: SergeantCooktoldyouthathewentonlineandwenttoawebsitecalledMySpaceandfoundapostingthathadbeenplacedthereby thedefendant'sgirlfriend,JessicaBarber,recognizedherpicture,abletomatchupthedateofbirthonthepostingwithherdateof birth,andthepostingincludedthesewords,"FreeBoozy.Justremember,snitchesgetstitches.Youknowwhoyouare." Inaddition,duringrebuttalargument,theStateagainreferencedthepagesprintedfromMySpace,assertingthatMs.Barberhademployed MySpaceasatoolofintimidationagainstawitnessfortheState.Itisclear,then,thattheMySpaceprintoutwasakeycomponentoftheState's case;theerrorintheadmissionofitsprintoutrequiresreversal. Insodoing,weshouldnotbeheardtosuggestthatprintoutsfromsocialnetworkingsitesshouldneverbeadmitted.Possibleavenuestoexploreto properlyauthenticateaprofileorpostingprintedfromasocialnetworkingsite,will,inallprobability,continuetodevelopastheeffortstoevidentially utilizeinformationfromthesitesincreases.See,e.g.,KatherineMinotti,Comment,TheAdventofDigitalDiaries:ImplicationsofSocialNetworking WebSitesfortheLegalProfession,60S.C.L.Rev.1057(2009).Anumberofauthenticationopportunitiescometomind,however.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

5/8

5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

Thefirst,andperhapsmostobviousmethodwouldbetoaskthepurportedcreatorifsheindeedcreatedtheprofileandalsoifsheaddedthe postinginquestion,i.e."[t]estimonyofawitnesswithknowledgethattheofferedevidenceiswhatitisclaimedtobe."Rule5901(b)(1).Thesecond optionmaybetosearchthecomputerofthepersonwhoallegedlycreatedtheprofileandpostingandexaminethecomputer'sinternethistoryand harddrivetodeterminewhetherthatcomputerwasusedtooriginatethesocialnetworkingprofileandpostinginquestion.Onecommentator,who servesasManagingDirectorandDeputyGeneralCounselofStrozFriedberg,[14]acomputerforensicsfirm,notesthat,"[s]inceauserunwittingly leavesanevidentiarytrailonhercomputersimplybyusingit,hercomputerwillprovideevidenceofherwebusage."SethP.Berman,etal.,Web

428

2.0:*428What'sEvidenceBetween"Friends"?,BostonBarJ.,Jan.Feb.2009,at5,7. Athirdmethodmaybetoobtaininformationdirectlyfromthesocialnetworkingwebsitethatlinkstheestablishmentoftheprofiletothepersonwho allegedlycreateditandalsolinksthepostingsoughttobeintroducedtothepersonwhoinitiatedit.Thismethodwasapparentlysuccessfully employedtoauthenticateaMySpacesiteinPeoplev.Clevenstine,68A.D.3d1448,891N.Y.S.2d511(2009).Inthecase,RichardClevenstinewas convictedofrapingtwoteenagegirlsandchallengedhisconvictionsbyassertingthatthecomputerdiskadmittedintoevidence,containinginstant messagesbetweenhimandthevictims,sentviaMySpace,wasnotproperlyauthenticated.Specifically,Clevenstinearguedthat"someoneelse accessedhisMySpaceaccountandsentmessagesunderhisusername."Id.at514.TheSupremeCourtofNewYork,AppellateDivision,agreed withthetrialjudgethattheMySpacemessageswereproperlyauthenticated,becausebothvictimstestifiedthattheyhadengagedininstant messagingconversationsaboutsexualactivitieswithClevenstinethroughMySpace.Inaddition,aninvestigatorfromthecomputercrimeunitofthe StatePolicetestifiedthat"hehadretrievedsuchconversationsfromtheharddriveofthecomputerusedbythevictims."Id.Finally,theprosecution wasabletoattributethemessagestoClevenstine,becausealegalcomplianceofficerforMySpaceexplainedattrialthat"themessagesonthe computerdiskhadbeenexchangedbyusersofaccountscreatedby[Clevenstine]andthevictims."Id.Thecourtconcludedthatsuchtestimony providedampleauthenticationlinkingtheMySpacemessagesinquestiontoClevenstinehimself.[15] JUDGMENTOFTHECOURTOFSPECIALAPPEALSREVERSED.CASEREMANDEDTOTHATCOURTWITHINSTRUCTIONSTOREVERSE THEJUDGMENTOFTHECIRCUITCOURTFORCECILCOUNTYANDREMANDTHECASETOTHECIRCUITCOURTFORANEWTRIAL. COSTSINTHISCOURTANDINTHECOURTOFSPECIALAPPEALSTOBEPAIDBYCECILCOUNTY. HARRELLandMURPHY,JJ.,dissent. HARRELL,J.,dissentinginwhichMURPHY,J.,joins. IdissentfromtheMajorityOpinion'sholdingthat"thepictureofMs.Barber,coupledwithherbirthdateandlocation,werenotsufficient`distinctive characteristics'onaMySpaceprofiletoauthenticateits[redacted]printout...."419Md.343,357,19A.3d415,424(2011). MarylandRule5901("Requirementofauthenticationoridentification")derivesfromandissimilarmateriallytoFederalRuleofEvidence901.[1]See

429

Washingtonv.*429State,406Md.642,651,961A.2d1110,1115(2008).Thus,federalcasesconstruingthefederalrulearealmostdirectauthority impactingonourconstructionofaMarylandanalogrule.SeeHigginsv.Barnes,310Md.532,543,530A.2d724,729(1987)("Marylandcourts havetraditionallyreliedonthefederalcourts'interpretationsofanalogousrulesaspersuasiveauthority....").InconstruingandapplyingFederal Rule901,federalcourtshaveheldalmostunanimouslythat"adocumentisproperlyauthenticatedifareasonablejurorcouldfindinfavorof authenticity."UnitedStatesv.Gagliardi,506F.3d140,151(2dCir.2007)(emphasisadded);seeUnitedStatesv.Twitty,72F.3d228,232(1st Cir.1995);UnitedStatesv.Rawlins,606F.3d73,82(3dCir.2010);UnitedStatesv.Branch,970F.2d1368,1370(4thCir.1992);UnitedStatesv. Logan,949F.2d1370,1377n.12(5thCir.1991);UnitedStatesv.Jones,107F.3d1147,1150n.1(6thCir.1997);UnitedStatesv.Dombrowski, 877F.2d520,525(7thCir.1989);UnitedStatesv.Tank,200F.3d627,630(9thCir.2000);UnitedStatesv.Blackwell,694F.2d1325,1331 (D.C.Cir.1982).Although,todate,wehavenotenunciatedsuchastandard,becauseIthinkthatthe"reasonablejuror"standardisconsistentwith MarylandRule5901requiringonly"evidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterinquestioniswhatitsproponentclaims"(emphasis added)Iwouldadoptit.[2]SeeDickensv.State,175Md.App.231,239,927A.2d32,37(2007)(citingUnitedStatesv.Safavian,435F.Supp.2d 36,38(D.D.C.2006))(statingthat"theburdenofproofforauthenticationisslight"). Applyingthatstandardtothepresentcase,areasonablejurorcouldconclude,basedonthepresenceontheMySpaceprofileof(1)apictureofa personappearingtoSergeantCooktobeMs.Barberposingwiththedefendant,herboyfriend;(2)abirthdatematchingMs.Barber's;(3)a descriptionofthepurportedcreatoroftheMySpaceprofileasbeingatwentythreeyearoldfromPortDeposit;and(4)referencestofreeing"Boozy" (anicknameforthedefendant),thattheredactedprintedpagesoftheMySpaceprofilecontainedinformationpostedbyMs.Barber. IamnotunmindfuloftheMajorityOpinion'sanalysisrelatingtotheconcernthatsomeoneotherthanMs.Barbercouldaccessorcreatetheaccount

430

andpostthe*430threateningmessage.Therecord,however,suggestsnomotivetodoso.Thetechnologicalheebiejeebies[3]discussedinthe MajorityOpiniongo,inmyopinion,however,nottotheadmissibilityoftheprintoutsunderRule5901,butrathertotheweighttobegiventhe evidencebythetrieroffact.SeeHaysv.State,40Md.633,648(1874)(holdingthatwheretherewasevidencethatapaperwaswhatitpurported tobe,itwasnoterrorforthetrialcourttoinstructthejurythat"iftheywerenotsatisfiedoftheidentityofthepaper...,thentheyshouldnot consideritall");LYNNMCLAIN,MARYLANDEVIDENCESTATEANDFEDERAL901:1(2001)(statingthat"authenticationofanitemisonlythe firststep"). Ithasbeensaidthatthe"purposeofauthenticationisto...filteruntrustworthyevidence."PhillipM.Adams&Assocs.,L.L.C.v.Dell,Inc.,621 F.Supp.2d1173,1184(D.Utah2009).Likemanyfiltersthatareunabletoremovecompletelyallimpurities,Rule5901doesnotacttodisallowany andallevidencethatmayhave"impurities"(i.e.,inthiscase,evidencethatcouldhavecome,conceivably,fromasourceotherthanthepurported source).Aslongasareasonablejurorcouldconcludethattheprofferedevidenceiswhatitsproponentpurportsittobe,theevidenceshouldbe

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

6/8

5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

admitted.SeeGeraldv.State,137Md.App.295,304,768A.2d140,145(2001)(statingthat,afteratrialcourtadmitsadocumentasbeing authenticatedproperly,"theultimatequestionofauthenticityislefttothejury").ThepotentialitiesthatareofconcerntotheMajorityOpinionarefit subjectsforcrossexaminationorrebuttaltestimonyandgoproperlytotheweightthefactfindermaygivetheprintouts.Accordingly,Idissent. JudgeMURPHYauthorizesmetostatethathejoinsintheviewsexpressedinthisdissent.
[1]Theterm"website"refersto"acollectionofdocumentsandrelatedfilesthatareownedororganizedbyaparticularindividualororganization."JonathanWilson,What'sInaWebSite?,Ga. B.J.,Apr.1999,at14,14. [2]"MySpaceisa`socialnetworking'websitewherememberscancreate`profiles'andinteractwithothermembers.AnyonewithInternetaccesscangoontotheMySpacewebsiteandview contentwhichisopentothegeneralpublicsuchasamusicarea,videosection,andmembers'profileswhicharenotsetas`private.'However,tocreateaprofile,uploadanddisplay photographs,communicatewithpersonsonthesite,write`blogs,'and/orutilizeotherservicesorapplicationsontheMySpacewebsite,onemustbea`member.'Anyonecanbecomeamember ofMySpaceatnochargesolongastheymeetaminimumagerequirementandregister."UnitedStatesv.Drew,259F.R.D.449,453(D.C.D.Cal.2009). [3]Toestablisha"profile,"auserneedsonlyavalidemailaccount.PatriciaSanchezAbril,A(My)SpaceofOne'sOwn:OnPrivacyandOnlineSocialNetworks,6Nw.J.Tech.&Intell.Prop.73, 74(2007).Generally,ausercreatesaprofileby"fillingoutaseriesofvirtualformselicitingabroadrangeofpersonaldata,"culminatinginamultimediacollagethatservesas"one'sdigital`face' incyberspace."NathanPetrashek,Comment,TheFourthAmendmentandtheBraveNewWorldofOnlineSocialNetworking,93Marq.L.Rev.1495,1499(Summer2010). [4]InhisPetitionforWritofCertiorari,GriffinpresentedthreequestionspertainingtotheMySpaceevidence,namely: 1.Whatevidenceisrequiredtoauthenticateaprintoutfromasocialnetworkingwebsite? 2.DidthecourterrinadmittingwhattheStateclaimedwasaprintoutfrompetitioner'sgirlfriend'sMySpaceprofilecontaininghighlyprejudicialcontentwithoutproperlyauthenticatingthematerial ashavingbeenpostedbypetitioner'sgirlfriend? 3.DidtheCourtofSpecialAppealserrinfindingthattheprejudicetopetitionerfromtheadmissionoftheMySpacepagedidnotoutweighitsprobativevalue? [5]Becauseofourdispositionofthefirstissue,weneednotandwillnotaddressthesecondquestionpresented. [6]TotheextentthatthequestionpresentedintheState'scrosspetitionconcernsthepreservationofGriffin'schallengetotheauthenticityoftheMySpaceevidence,theauthenticityissuewas clearlypreservedforappellatereviewbyGriffin'sexplicitobjectiontotheadmissionoftheprintedpages.InsofarastheStatecontendsthatGriffinfailedtopreservehischallengetotheprobityof theMySpaceevidence,weneednotandwillnotaddressthatissue,becauseevidencethathasnotbeenproperlyauthenticatedisinadmissible,regardlessofitsprobityorpotentiallyprejudicial effect. [7]Rule5901,describingtherequirementofauthenticationoridentification,provides,inpertinentpart: (a)Generalprovision.Therequirementofauthenticationoridentificationasaconditionprecedenttoadmissibilityissatisfiedbyevidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterinquestionis whatitsproponentclaims. (b)Illustrations.Bywayofillustrationonly,andnotbywayoflimitation,thefollowingareexamplesofauthenticationoridentificationconformingwiththerequirementsofthisRule: (1)Testimonyofwitnesswithknowledge.Testimonyofawitnesswithknowledgethattheofferedevidenceiswhatitisclaimedtobe. *** (4)Circumstantialevidence.Circumstantialevidence,suchasappearance,contents,substance,internalpatterns,location,orotherdistinctivecharacteristics,thattheofferedevidenceiswhatit isclaimedtobe. [8]Socialnetworkingwebsites,whichofferaframeworkinwhichusersinteractandcreatecontentthemselves,isanapplicationof"Web2.0,"aphrasethatdoesnotrefertoanyspecificnew technology,butrefersinsteadtothe"participatorynatureofhowawebsite'scontentiscreatedanddelivered."SethP.Berman,LamD.Nguyen&JulieS.Chrzan,Web2.0:What'sEvidence Between"Friends"?,BostonBarJ.,Jan.Feb.2009,at5,5. [9]Facebook,thebehemothofthesocialnetworkingworld,allowsuserstobuildaprofileandinteractwith"friends"inmuchthesamewayasMySpace: Facebookpromptsnewuserstosupplytheirname,emailaddress,sex,andbirthdate.PerhapsasavestigeofFacebook'srestrictiveroots,usersarealsoaskedtonameanyhighschools, colleges,oruniversitiesattended.Usersmaybuilduponthisfoundationbysupplyingadditionalinformationinanyoffoursectionsthatcomposetheprofile:"BasicInformation,"whichincludesthe user'scurrentcity,hometown,relationshipstatus,andpoliticalandreligiousviews;"PersonalInformation,"whichincludesinterests,activities,andfavoritemusic,movies,andbooks;"Contact Information,"whichincludeswebsites,addresses,phonenumbers,andinstantmessagingscreennames;and"EducationandWork,"whichislargelyselfdescriptive."Status"postsallowusers toupdatetheirprofileswithuptotheminuteinformation,offeringusersavirtualsoapboxtotheironlinecommunity. Facebook'scommunityelementisperhapsmoresophisticatedthanthatofMySpace.Thewebsite'sdesignmakesiteasyforusersto"compilelistsoftheirfriends,postpubliccommentson friends'profiles,...sendprivatemessagestootherusers[,]...[and]creategroupsofpeoplewithsimilarinterests...."Membersmayuploadphotographs,andbothFacebookandMySpace allowusersto"tag"theirfriendsintheimage.Tagging"createsalink[in]theindividual'sprofilefromthephotograph,makinguserseasilyidentifiable,evenwhentheviewerofthephotographis not`friends'withthephotograph'ssubjects." Petrashek,93Marq.L.Rev.at150607(footnotesomitted). [10]Sophosapparentlyconductedthestudytodemonstratethatit"wasabletoacquirehighlypersonalinformationfrom[fortypercent]ofthenearly200Facebookuserswhochosetoadd `FreddieStaur'asafriendintheirFacebookaccounts."Mint.com,HOWTO:ProtectYourPrivacyonFacebook,MySpace,andLinkedIn(Sept.6,2007),http://www.blog. mint.com/blog/moneyhack/howtoprotectyourprivacyonfacebookmyspaceandlinkedin/. [11]Weaddthissectiontohighlightthatawitnesswithknowledge,suchasMs.Barber,couldbeaskedwhethertheMySpaceprofilewashersandwhetheritscontentswereauthoredbyher; she,however,wasnotsubjecttosuchinquirywhenshewascalledbytheState.SeeUnitedStatesv.Barlow,568F.3d215,220(5thCir.2009)(reasoningthattestimonyofwitnesswhohad posedasaminorfemalethatthetranscriptsfairlyandfullyreproducedtheonlinechatswassufficienttoauthenticatethemforadmission);UnitedStatesv.Gagliardi,506F.3d140,151(2d Cir.2007)(reasoningthatchatroomlogswereproperlyauthenticatedashavingbeensentbythedefendantthroughtestimonyfromwitnesseswhohadparticipatedintheonlineconversations). [12]Thedissentminimizesas"thetechnologicalheebiejeebies"thechallengesinherentinauthenticating,forevidentiarypurposes,socialnetworkingwebsites.Noneoftheauthoritiescitedbythe dissentinsupportofitsconclusion,however,evenaddressestheauthenticationofsocialnetworkingsites.Onlyonecase,UnitedStatesv.Gagliardi,506F.3d140,151(2dCir.2007),involves digitalcommunications,namelyInternetchatroomconversations,whichtheSecondCircuitrecognizedwereappropriatelyauthenticatedbywitnesseswhohadparticipatedinthe"chats,"clearly persons"withknowledge."SeeFederalRule901(b)(1). Inaddition,the"reasonablejuror"standardtowhichthedissentrefersisapparentlyderivedfromthefederalanaloguetoMarylandRule5104(b),concerning"relevanceconditionedonfact,"a protocolnotaddressedinthiscase,whichwediscussinfootnote15,infra.SeeUnitedStatesv.Logan,949F.2d1370,1377n.12(5thCir.1991)(reasoningthatindeterminingwhethertoadmit evidenceofdisputedauthenticity,thecourtshouldutilizetheprotocolestablishedinFederalRule104(b),namelythat"thejudge[]makeapreliminarydetermination[asto]whetherajurycould reasonablyconclude"thattheevidenceiswhatitpurportstobe). Finally,authenticationofevidencemustbeaddressedbythetrialcourtwhetherornotmotivetofabricateormanipulateisraisedbyanyoneorisinissue.SeeLynnMcLain,6AMaryland

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

7/8

5/31/12

Griffin v. State, 19 A. 3d 415 - Md: Court of Appeals 2011 - Google Scholar

EvidenceStateandFederal901:1(2001)("UnderMarylandlaw,generally...anobject,writing,telephoneconversation,ortaperecordingisnotselfauthenticating.Someevidenceotherthan theitemorreportedconversationitselfisrequiredtoestablishthatitiswhatitsproponentsaysitis,orcomesfromthesourcewhichitsproponentprofesses."). [13]Wefurthernotethatauthenticationconcernsattendanttoemails,instantmessagingcorrespondence,andtextmessagesdiffersignificantlyfromthoseinvolvingaMySpaceprofileand postingprintout,becausesuchcorrespondencesissentdirectlyfromonepartytoanintendedrecipientorrecipients,ratherthanpublishedforalltosee.SeeIndependentNewspapers,Inc.v. Brodie,407Md.415,423,966A.2d432,437(2009)(contrastingemailsandinstantmessageswitha"differentcategoryofInternetcommunications,inwhichuserspoststatementstotheworld atlargewithoutspecification,"suchasonsocialnetworkingsites).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Safavian,435F.Supp.2d36,41(D.D.C.2006)(reasoningemailscouldbeauthenticatedby comparisonbythejurywiththoseemailsthathadalreadybeenindependentlyauthenticatedthroughthecontentsorintheemailheadingitself);Commonwealthv.Amaral,78Mass.App.Ct.671, 674,941N.E.2d1143,1147(2011)(reasoningthat"[t]heactionsofthedefendanthimselfservedtoauthenticatetheemails,"becauseoneemailindicatedthatdefendantwouldbeatacertain placeatacertaintimeandthedefendantappearedatthatplaceandtime,andinanotheremail,defendantprovidedhistelephonenumberandimmediatelyansweredwhentheinvestigatorcalled thatnumber);Dickensv.State,175Md.App.231,23840,927A.2d32,3637(2007)(reasoningtextmessagesreceivedonvictim'scellphonewereproperlyauthenticatedbecausethephone numberononemessageshowedthatithadcomefromdefendant'sphoneandothermessagesreferencedthedefendant'srighttoseethecouple'sminorchildandtheirweddingvows). [14]Accordingtothefirm'swebsite,StrozFriedbergisatechnicalservicesfirmspecializingintheareasofcomputerforensics,mobilephoneforensics,electronicdiscovery,databreach, cybercrimeresponse,andinvestigations.StrozFriedbergLLCWhoWeAre,http://www.strozfriedberg.com/methodology/xprGeneralContent1.aspx?xpST=Methodology(lastvisitedApr.26, 2011). [15]Federally,someoftheuncertaintyinvolvingevidenceprintedfromsocialnetworkingsiteshasbeenaddressedbyembracingthenotionof"conditionalrelevancy,"pursuanttoFederalRule 104(b),whichprovides"[w]hentherelevancyofevidencedependsuponthefulfillmentofaconditionoffact,thecourtshalladmititupon,orsubjectto,theintroductionofevidencesufficientto supportafindingofthefulfillmentofthecondition."Inthisway,thetrieroffactcouldweighthereliabilityoftheMySpaceevidenceagainstthepossibilitythatanimpostergeneratedthematerialin question.SeeLorrainev.MarkelAmericanInsurance,241F.R.D.534,53940(2007).MarylandRule5104(b)establishesanearlyidenticalprotocol;we,however,havenotbeenaskedinthis casetoaddresstheefficacyoftheRule5104(b)protocol. [1]FederalRuleofEvidence901provides,inpertinentpart: (a)Generalprovision.Therequirementofauthenticationoridentificationasaconditionprecedenttoadmissibilityissatisfiedbyevidencesufficienttosupportafindingthatthematterinquestionis whatitsproponentclaims. (b)Illustrations.Bywayofillustrationonly,andnotbywayoflimitation,thefollowingareexamplesofauthenticationoridentificationconformingwiththerequirementsofthisrule: (1)Testimonyofwitnesswithknowledge.Testimonythatamatteriswhatitisclaimedtobe. *** (4)Distinctivecharacteristicsandthelike.Appearance,contents,substance,internalpatterns,orotherdistinctivecharacteristics,takeninconjunctionwithcircumstances. [2]ProfessorMcLainexplains: Theitemwillbeproperlyauthenticatedifitsproponenthasofferedfoundationevidencethatthejudgefindswouldbesufficienttosupportafindingbyareasonabletrieroffactthattheitemiswhat itispurportedtobe.Md.Rule5901(a),consistentwithpriorMarylandcaselaw,establishesthatthestandardofproofisthesameasisfoundinMd.Rule5104(b)forfactsonwhichthe relevanceofanitemisconditioned.Inajurytrial,thejudgeneednotbepersonallysatisfied,byevenapreponderanceoftheevidence,thattheproffereditemisauthentic;thejudgemustfindthe authenticationrequirementmet,ifareasonablejurycouldfindtheevidencetobewhatitsproponentclaimsittobe. LYNNMCLAIN,MARYLANDEVIDENCESTATEANDFEDERAL901:1(2001). [3]"Heebiejeebies"isanidiomusedtodescribeanxiety,apprehension,orjitters;attributedtoWilliamMorgan("Billy")DeBeck,acartoonist,inthe26October1923editionoftheNewYork American.SeealsoLOUISARMSTRONG&THEHOTFIVE,HEEBIEJEEBIES(OkehRecords1926)("Say,I'vegottheheebies,Imeanthejeebies,talkinaboutthedance,theheebie jeebies.").

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=419+Md.+343&hl=en&as_sdt=4,21&case=383511361965188584

8/8