Skip to main content

Admissibility of Facebook Evidence: Delaware Edition



Parker v. State of Delaware - Delaware Supreme Court

Facts:  Note:  The facts of this case dealt with an assault (non-employment related) and subsequent Facebook posts by the alleged attacker, Parker, in regard to the assault.  At trial, the State of Delaware sought to introduce the Facebook posts into evidence.  Over Parker's objections, the trial court admitted the Facebook posts into evidence and the jury convicted her.  The Superior Court adopted the Texas approach in regard to the introduction of the Facebook posts.  Parker appealed.

Holding:  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to adopt the Texas approach in regard to the introduction of the Facebook posts and affirmed the lower court's ruling.  The Supreme Court distinguished between the Texas and Maryland approaches to the introduction of social media evidence at trial.

  • The Texas approach (from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case Tienda v. State) provides that when a party seeks to introduce social media evidence at trial, any form of verification under the Rules of Evidence can be used to authenticate it.  This is a much easier legal standard for the proponent of evidence to clear.  
  • The Maryland approach (from the Maryland Court of Appeals case Griffin v. State) provides that when a party seeks to introduce social media evidence at trial, the proponent must introduce some sort of evidence to show the posts are authentic.  Supporters of this approach point to the fact that social media posts can be faked or inauthentic, and this heightened evidentiary standard protects against the introduction of improper evidence.

After review of these two different standards, the Supreme Court held that the Texas approach is the proper way to authenticate social media evidence.  Consequently, the lower court's decision to adhere to the Texas approach, in regard to the introduction of Parker's Facebook posts, was held to be proper and the conviction was upheld.

The Takeaway:  By following the approach adopted by Texas, Delaware has clarified that social media evidence should be treated like any other type of evidence.  When an employer seeks to introduce social media evidence at trial, any form of verification under the Rules of Evidence can be used to authenticate it.  Rather than requiring the proponent to offer evidence to demonstrate that a social media post is authentic, this standard adopted by Delaware should make it easier for the proponent to introduce the evidence at trial.  

Given the increasing number of times that social media evidence such as Facebook and Twitter posts are being introduced by employers as evidence at trial, this ruling makes it easier to authenticate the evidence and actually get it into trial.

Judgment:  The Delaware Supreme Court established that that when a party seeks to introduce social media evidence at trial, any form of verification under the Rules of Evidence can be used to authenticate it. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Ridgely

Date:  February 5, 2014

Opinion:  http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=200710

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more