Conn. Courts Weigh In on Social Media as Evidence

When defendant Robert Eleck wanted to impeach the credibility of a key prosecution witness, he turned to a source that has increasingly provided a treasure trove of evidence in court cases: Facebook. The messages on the witness's Facebook page appeared to contradict her testimony that she had no contact with Eleck after he was accused of stabbing another teen at a party.

But there was just one catch. Though the woman did not deny the postings came from her Facebook account, she testified that she had not written them. Instead, she claimed, the page had been hacked into. She planted enough seeds of doubt that the trial judge ruled the messages inadmissible as evidence.

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently upheld the ruling. It's one of a number of similar decisions in jurisdictions around the country as courts grapple with whether and how to admit social media evidence in civil and criminal cases.

At least one legal scholar believes the Connecticut ruling grafts a stricter standard of admissibility onto social media evidence than what is required.

"You really have to accept the fact that the standard is sufficiency and the standard is a low standard for a purpose," said Sam Stonefield, a professor at Western New England University School of Law who has written extensively on evidence issues. "If there are problems with the evidence, let the other side bring those to the attention of the jury and let the jury decide. Historically, whenever there's been a new technology, courts have been wary of embracing that new technology."

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Marie P. Grady