Online Evidence Admissibility

People v. Beckley, 10 S.O.S. 3135 (California, June 10, 2010).

A photograph from a website must be authenticated by the testimony of a person who was present when it was taken or an expert who can establish that it wasn’t altered.

United States v. Brand 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. January 12, 2005).

Chat transcript of AOL instant messages admissible since it was sufficiently similar to the charged conduct.

Hammontree v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) — S.E.2d —-, 2007 WL 547763

Where the victim testified that she was an ‘actual participant’ in the IM conversation and confirmed its contents, the IM ‘transcript’ was properly authenticated.

U.S. v. Burt (7th Cir.,July 26, 2007) 495 F.3d 733

Logs of a Yahoo! chat were admissible when properly authenticated.

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company (D.Md. May 4, 2007) 241 F.R.D. 534.

Case provides a comprehensive analysis of how to authenticate digital evidence such as digital photos, email and text messages.

People v. Hawkins (June 2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428.

Court addresses California Evidence Code section 1552 [printed representation of computer information or a computer program is presumed to be accurate]. Court noted “the true test for admissibility of a printout reflecting a computer’s internal operations is not whether the printout was made in the regular course of business, but whether the computer was operating properly at the time of the printout.”

EEOC v. E.I dupont de Nemours & Co., 2004 WL 2347559, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 706

Printout from Census Bureau web site containing domain address from which image was printed and date on which it was printed was admissible in evidence.

Telewizja Polska USA, Inc., v. Echostar Satellite Corp. (N.D. Ill.2004) 2004 WL 2367740 [Not Reported]

Archived versions of web site content, stored and available at a third party web site, were admissible into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The contents of the web site could also be considered an admission of a party opponent, and thus are not barred by the hearsay rule.

U.S. v. Tank (9th Cir. 2000) 200 F.3d 627.

Authorship and Authentication of chat messages.

People v. Von Gunten (2002 Cal.App.3d Dist.) 2002 WL 501612. [Unpublished.]

Defendant laid an inadequate foundation of authenticity to admit, in prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon, hard copy of e-mail messages (Instant Messages) between one of his friends and the victim’s companion, as there was no direct proof connecting victim’s companion to the screen name on the e-mail messages.