About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


87 Temp. L. Rev. Online 1 (2014-2015)

handle is hein.journals/tlro87 and id is 1 raw text is: THE SOCIAL MEDIUM: WHY THE AUTHENTICATION BAR SHOULD BE RAISED FOR SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE Colin Miller* & Charles White** I. INTRODUCTION Tiffany Parker's trial started and ended with Facebook. On December 2, 2011, Parker fought with Sheniya Brown over Facebook messages regarding a mutual love interest.' Later that night, Parker allegedly posted entries on her Facebook page containing content such as bet tht [sic] bitch didnt [sic] think [I] was going to see her ass . .. bet she wont [sic] inbox me no more, #caughtthatbitch.2 After the jury rejected Parker's claim of self-defense and convicted her of second-degree assault, the sole basis for her appeal was that the prosecution failed to properly authenticate the Facebook entries as ones she had authored.3 In addressing the issue, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that courts have applied two conflicting approaches regarding the authentication of social media evidence. Most courts apply a traditional authentication standard based on the assumption that the risk of forgery exists with any evidence.' Other courts, however, impose a higher authentication bar based on forgery concerns unique to social media evidence. This Essay argues against the majority approach and in favor of a more stringent authentication standard for social media evidence. II. AUTHENTICATION FRAMEWORK Before a party can introduce evidence, it must first provide some indication that the evidence is what the party claims it to be, i.e., it must authenticate the evidence. For example, a prosecutor seeking to introduce a confession note allegedly written by the defendant must first present evidence that the defendant in fact wrote the letter. According to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.6 * Associate Dean for Faculty Development & Associate Professor, University of South Carolina School of Law; Blog Editor, EvidenceProf Blog: http://lawprofessors.typepad.con/evidenceprof/. *Student, University of South Carolina School ofLaw; J.D. expected, 2015. 1. Parker v. State, 85 A.3d 682, 683 (Del. 2014). 2. Id. at 684. 3. Id. 4. Id. at 686. 5. Id. 6. FED. R. EvID. 901(a). 1