We're contacted fairly frequently by attorneys with electronic evidence questions, so we thought it would be helpful to put together the following list of our resources on the subject:
Jonathan D. Frieden and Leigh M. Murray, The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 17 RICH. J. L. & TECH. 5 (Fall 2010), http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v17i2/article5.pdf.
Facebook pictures of a Mother drinking and socializing were properly admitted into evidence according to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in an appeal from a divorce and custody order. LaLonde v. LaLonde, No. 2009-CA-002279-MR, 2011 WL 832465 (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011). The Court held that the photos posted on the social networking site were properly authenticated by testimony of the Mother and thus, properly admitted into evidence.
Most information is now communicated, generated, or stored electronically so "it can be expected that electronic evidence will constitute much, if not most, of the evidence used in future motions practice or at trial." See Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 537-37 (D. Md. 2007). Under these circumstances, a trial lawyer must ensure that he or she knows how to properly lay the foundation for admitting electronic evidence.
In an effort to assist counsel in "getting it right on the first try," at least in federal court, we have written an article entitled, "The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence Under the Federal Rules of Evidence" which was published today by the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. If you get a chance to read the article, please let us know what you think about it.
On December 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals for Texas ruled on an appeal from a murder conviction in the trial court. Brumfield v. State of TX, 2010 WL 5187690 (Dec. 23, 2010). The appellant was convicted and given a 90-year sentence for shooting the complainant to death during a fistfight. On appeal, the appellant contended that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a MySpace video in which the appellant was wielding a gun. The state offered the video into evidence through a witness who testified that the appellant and other men created the video just 11 days before the shooting occurred, which she then posted on her MySpace page. The appellant objected to the MySpace video as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial and the appellant contended that the trial court erred in overruling his objections.
If you were at the presentation yesterday, please leave a comment letting me know what you thought. You can download a PDF file containing my complete PowerPoint presentation here.