Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
The fundamental rule. A document is not relevant unless it is what it purports to be and, as explained above, a party must therefore produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is what it purports to be. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
The central and authoritative text is Judge Paul Grimm’s remarkably comprehensive opinion in Lorraine v. Makel Amer. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007). See Paul Grimm, Back to the Future: Lorraine v. Makel Amer. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).
For an extreme view, see St. Clair v. Johnny’s Oyster & Shrimp, 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tx. 1999) (“[A]ny evidence procured off the Internet is adequate for almost nothing”).
Perfect 10 Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1153–54 (C.C. Cal 2002) (declaration that electronically stored information (“esi”) was downloaded from webpages and contained dates on which they were printed met burden of Federal Rule of Evidence 901 because they permitted juror to believe that they are what proponents says they are); Hood v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 2005 WL 3005612 at * 2 (N.D. Ill, Nov. 8, 2005) (affidavit of counsel that he retrieved documents from website and that addresses stamped on bottom of each exhibit were addresses he retrieved from web site in support of motion for summary judgment was sufficient to permit consideration of documents).
See Ira M. Robbins, Writings on the Wall: The Need for an Authorship- Centric Approach to the Authentication of Social- Networking Evidence, 13 Minn. J. Of Law, Science & Technology 1 (2012).
In a cartoon on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, Mr. Peabody, a very intelligent dog, would use the Way Back Machine to permit him and his owner, a boy named Sherman, to visit history as it occurred whether it was the assassination of Caesar or the outbreak of the Civil War.
Note that government witnesses were precluded from testifying that a certain email was to or from one witness; the jury would draw that inference if it saw fit from the contents of the emails.
Note that in that context, the burden of establishing authenticity is said to be a light one. United States v. Appolon, 715 F.3d 362, 371 (1st Cir. 2013) (relatively undemanding requirement of proving authenticity is met by proof showing reasonable probability evidence is what it claims to be).
Note the similarity of this conclusion to the conclusion of authenticity in criminal cases where the defendant uses the computer to commit the crime, by, for example, downloading child pornography and then accepting the invitation of what he thinks to be a fellow predator to have sex with a child. The fellow predator is actually a police offer who, by email, invites the defendant to meet him at a certain place. When the defendant arrives there, it permits the conclusion that the emails between the two of them are authentic.
“My Space” was an antecedent of Facebook.
Note that public records are also an exception to the rule against hearsay. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
John M. Facciola
Vincent M. Catanzaro
- Chapter 10