Fri. Apr 19th, 2024

“Unfriending” Evidence Maryland Follows “ Reasonable Juror” Standard in Authentication of Social Media



Only available via Download another LEGAL TAKE
What Happens on Myspace Stays on Myspace: Authentication and Griffin v. State HERE



In State v Sample, __ Md. __, 2020 WL 2316709 at *3 (May 11, 2020), the Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that “that the standard of proof for authenticating social media evidence is the preponderance of evidence standard, i.e., there must be sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable juror to find that it is more likely than not that the social media evidence is what it is purported to be.” The inquiry is “context-specific and the presence or absence of certain biographical information… is not necessarily dispositive….” Id. at * 17. The offering party need not rule out all other possibilities that are inconsistent with authenticity. Id. at * 17. “Requiring the State to somehow conclusively disprove that someone other than Sample was responsible for the unfriending would establish too high a standard for authenticating social media evidence. The State was not required to eliminate all possibilities that were inconsistent with authenticity….” Id. at *20.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland previously decided two social media authentication cases. In Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), it reversed a conviction, holding that certain social media evidence (a MySpace page) had not been properly authenticated. In a passage that has been both followed and distinguished, it wrote that:

The potential for abuse and manipulation of a social networking site by someone other than its purported creator and/or user leads to our conclusion that a printout of an image from such a site requires a greater degree of authentication than merely identifying the date of birth of the creator and her visage in a photograph on the site in order to reflect that Ms. Barber was its creator and the author of the “snitches get stitches” language.

Id. at 357–58 (emphasis added).

In the next decision, Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 636 (2015), the Court expressly wrote that it was elucidating and implementing GriffinSublet consolidated three appeals. In Sublet, the Court held that the circuit courts did not abuse their discretion in admitting or excluding social media evidence. The Sample Court described Sublet as follows:

Four years after Griffin, in 2015, in Sublet, 442 Md. at 678, 113 A.3d at 722, … this Court held that, to authenticate social media evidence, there must be proof from which a reasonable juror could find that the evidence is what it purports to be.

Sample, 2020 WL 2316709, at *14.

In Sample, the Court quoted the “greater degree of authentication” language and simultaneously followed the reasonable juror standard of Sublet. The Sample Court wrote:

As discussed, in Sublet, 442 Md. at 671, 678, 113 A.3d at 718, 722, this Court adopted the “reasonable juror” test from federal case law for authentication of social media evidence. Although this Court did not mention the term “preponderance of the evidence” in its discussion in Sublet, this Court’s adoption of the “reasonable juror” test necessarily means that, for a trial court to admit social media evidence, there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that the social media evidence is authentic by a preponderance of the evidence….. In sum, by adopting the “reasonable juror” test in Sublet, 442 Md. at 671, 113 A.3d at 718, this Court concurrently adopted the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof that goes with the test. For a trial court to admit social media evidence, there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that the social media is authentic by a preponderance of the evidence…. Accordingly, we reaffirm our holding in Sublet, 442 Md. at 678, 113 A.3d at 722, and conclude that, where there is an issue as to authenticating social media evidence, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that it is more likely than not that the social media evidence is what the proponent of the evidence purports it to be.

Sample, 2020 WL 2316709, at *16-17.

In Sample, the prosecution introduced evidence that a robbery defendant had “unfriended” his deceased accomplice shortly after the robbery-gone-bad. The unfriending was offered to show that the defendant was distancing himself from the decedent. In Sample, two men attempted to rob a liquor store. The store owner shot one of them, Mayo, and Mayo died outside the store. The other man got away. Sample was arrested and charged.

While investigating the attempted armed robbery, a detective searched Facebook for a profile associated with the name Claude Mayo. Ultimately, the detective requested from Facebook, and received, “Facebook Business Records” regarding two Facebook profiles—“claude.mayo.5” and “SoLo Haze”— as well as a “Certificate of Authenticity of Domestic Records of Regularly Conducted Activity[.]”

While the decision describes those records in detail, in brief summary the records showed that SoLo Haze had unfriended Mayo a day after the robbery. Sample contended that there was no evidence that he – as opposed to someone else – had unfriended the decedent. The prosecution offered the evidence of “unfriending” to demonstrate that defendant Sample was attempting – one day after the robbery – to distance himself from the decedent, Mayo. The decision involved admissibility of information from two Facebook profiles, those of both Sample and Mayo. The Court wrote:

We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Facebook-related evidence, as there was sufficient circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) for a reasonable juror to find that the SoLo Haze Facebook profile belonged to Sample, that the claude.mayo.5 Facebook profile belonged to Mayo, and that Sample used the SoLo Haze profile to unfriend the claude.mayo.5 profile the day after the shooting.

Sample, 2020 WL 2316709, at *3.

The decision is instructive for the detail it provides regarding the evidence of authentication. Further, it demonstrates the sophistication of evidence presented, including surveillance video, FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team testimony, and information obtained from Facebook. The dissimilarity between that sophisticated evidence in Sample from the simple screen shot of a MySpace page that was presented in Griffin demonstrates the steep learning curve of the past few years.

Sample is equally noteworthy for its reaffirmance of SubletSample, 2020 WL 2316709 at *16-17, and its reliance on the Griffin dissents. Specifically, the Sample Court wrote:

In a dissenting opinion that the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. joined, the Honorable Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. stated that he would adopt the test for authentication that nearly all United States Courts of Appeals, including the Second Circuit, had embraced…. Consistent with the … dissent in Griffin, 419 Md. at 366, 19 A.3d at 429 (Harrell, J., dissenting), for purposes of social media evidence, this Court adopted the “reasonable juror” test… See Sublet, 442 Md. at 671, 113 A.3d at 718.

Sample, 2020 WL 2316709, at *14.

In Footnote 12, the Griffin decision rejected, or at least distinguished, the “reasonable juror” standard of Sublet and Sample. As noted above, Griffin had suggested a “greater degree of authentication” requirement for social media. For example, in Footnote 13, the Court wrote: “We further note that authentication concerns attendant to e-mails, instant messaging correspondence, and text messages differ significantly from those involving a MySpace profile and posting printout, because such correspondences is sent directly from one party to an intended recipient or recipients, rather than published for all to see.”

It remains to be seen whether the Sample Court’s reliance on the reasonable juror standard, the Griffin dissents, and Sublet portends an end to Griffin and the “greater degree of authentication” requirement. A good argument to that effect can be made.  The Griffen approach was rejected in State v. Hannah, 448 N.J. Super. 78, 88, 151 A.3d 99, 105 (App. Div. 2016), citing Parker v. State, 85A.3d 682, 686-87 (Del. 2014), and United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125, 131, n. 5 (2nd Cir. 2014); see B. Hogan, GRIFFIN V. STATE: SETTING THE BAR TOO HIGH FOR AUTHENTICATING SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE, 71 Md.L.Rev. Endnotes 61 (2012) (“This holding improperly distinguished social media evidence from other forms of electronic evidence and suggested an artificially high authentication threshold for social media evidence presented at trial.”).

Maryland authentication decisions are discussed extensively in a forthcoming book, M. Berman, et al., eds., ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION IN THE MARYLAND COURTS (Md. State Bar Ass’n 2020).







To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below 

Abuse & Neglect The Reporters  (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166 Article 2.5. (CANRAClick Here

 Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdfThe Child Abuse


It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law  its a PDF files taken from

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the TheBrandenburg testfor incitement to violence 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United StatesTrue Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive 1st Amendment


We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PCOffering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PCPreparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PCPolice Officer$ Filing False Report$

We also have the Spencer v. PetersPolice Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PCFiling a False Document in California

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse AllegationsFamily Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee RecoveryClick Here

 Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 LawsuitHow to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for MisconductKnow More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in CaliforniaHow to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police



We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the  Amdt5. – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the 9.32 Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!


Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf


Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process  – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone  Click Here

Mathews v. EldridgeDue Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test3 Part TestAmdt5. Mathews Test

UnfriendingEvidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts  1st Amendment

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case 

Fighting Discovery Abuse in LitigationForensic & Investigative AccountingClick Here

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDAClick Here

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below: 


Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization FormRelease of Case InformationClick Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get StartedClick Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California –  Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal Felony (Defendant) (CR-120)  1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here

 Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help Click Here

At issue in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) was whether a conviction under state law prohibiting profane language in a public place violated a man's First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Supreme Court vacated the man's conviction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its recent rulings about fighting words. The man had used profane language at a public school board meeting. (Illustration via Pixabay, public domain) Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling Parental Right$ Help Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction – SCOTUS RULINGS on Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct



Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING 

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.