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

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more