Courts Skeptical Of Facebook Evidence

http://ow.ly/6lC7j

Article by Marie P. Grady posted on Connecticut Law Tribune website.

This article touches on the fact that there is an inherent suspicion by the courts of evidence offered from social media networking sites such as Facebook.

This article describes a case in which a witness denied making Facebook posts, and claimed her account must have been hacked.  Since the opposing side trying to offer that evidence into court had nothing to counter the witnesses claims of hacking, the evidence was deemed inadmissible.  Attorneys must remember, especially for electronically stored information, they have to lay the foundation of the evidence to make it admissible.  For social media networking evidence, this standard might be higher than ever.

As the article states, "
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.”"