“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 Griffin. Sublet 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 Sublet, Sample, 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. (CANRA) Click Here
Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse
ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)
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 The ‘Brandenburg test’ for 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 States – True 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 Tallahassee – 1st 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 Officials – 1st Amendment
We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st 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
ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!
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 PC – Offering False Evidence
We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$
We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police 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 PC – Filing 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 Allegations – Family 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 Recovery – Click 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$
$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$
$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$
Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit
Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!
New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police
RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$
YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK
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 Amdt18.104.22.168.2 – 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!
GRANDPARENT CASE LAW
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 READS>>>>>>
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. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt22.214.171.124.2 Mathews Test
“Unfriending” Evidence – 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 Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here
Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here
Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below:
APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here
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 Information – Click 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 Started – Click Here
Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider
Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion 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 § 700.1 – If 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
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.