Tag:Admissibility

1
Golden v. State, 2009 WL 3153262 (Ark. App. Ct. Sept. 30, 2009)
2
Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)
3
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1025166 (Ky. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2009)
4
Palisades Collection, LLC v. Kedik, 890 N.Y.S. 2d 230, 67 A.D. 3d 1329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
5
Hape v. State, 903 N.E. 2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2009)
6
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Olson Staffing Servs., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009)
7
Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 674 S.E. 2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)
8
Dirickson v. State, 2009 WL 195744 (Ark. App. Jan. 28, 2009)
9
State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)
10
State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009)

Golden v. State, 2009 WL 3153262 (Ark. App. Ct. Sept. 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Despite testimony that the methods utilized to copy surveillance tape could reduce the image?s fine detail and the State?s failure to comply with a court order to produce the original of the surveillance tape because it had been lost, the trial court did not err in failing to grant defendant a new trial where a duplicate tape is admissible to the same extent as the original and where there was no evidence of bad faith in the loss of the tape; in so deciding, court also cited testimony that defendant did not objet

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Copy of original surveillance tape

Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff destroyed the original recording of an automated telephone message that was the subject of the litigation but sought to offer an alleged duplicate recording, court denied defendant?s motion to preclude such an offering where defendant failed to establish the requisite ?bad faith? necessary under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) and because the evidence was vital to plaintiff?s case but ordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that ?the destroyed portion of the message contained information harmful to plaintiff?s case? where plaintiff and plaintiff?s counsel (who did not instruct plaintiff of his duty to preserve and was responsible for creating the duplicate recording) failed to uphold their duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Recording of automated telephone message

Thompson v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1025166 (Ky. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2009)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld trial court?s admission of digital recordings into evidence where tapes were authenticated by officer?s testimony that that the device used for recording had been used more than 100 times and that that the recording was downloaded directly to a computer and then transferred to CDs specifically identified at trial, and where informant testified that the recordings ?fairly and accurately depicted the events of the [recorded transaction]?

Nature of Case: Criminal drug trafficking

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recordings of alleged drug sale to informant

Palisades Collection, LLC v. Kedik, 890 N.Y.S. 2d 230, 67 A.D. 3d 1329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s finding that plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a printed electronic spreadsheet where, although plaintiff?s agent averred the spreadsheet was kept in the usual course of business, the agent failed to establish his familiarity with plaintiff?s business practices and ?when, how, or by whom? the spreadsheet was made and where the agent failed to establish that the printed spreadsheet was a true and accurate representation of the electronic record

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Printed electronic spreadsheet

Hape v. State, 903 N.E. 2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2009)

Key Insight: Where a jury discovered and considered text messages not authenticated separately from a properly admitted cell phone, court found that text messages must be separately authenticated before admission into evidence but declined to find grounds for reversal of defendant?s conviction where the error was harmless in the context of the other evidence against him

Nature of Case: Felony possession of methamphetamines

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Olson Staffing Servs., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where authentication ?is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims?, court rejected argument that only the author could authenticate and found email was properly authenticated by the testimony of the person who ?personally retrieved the email from [the relevant] computer?

Nature of Case: Violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 674 S.E. 2d 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting plaintiff?s motion to strike defendants? affidavit and attached emails where emails were not properly authenticated; appellate court found defendants? reliance on Willis v. Hill, 116 Ga. App. 848 (1967) to appeal the trial court?s ruling was misplaced where Willis held that ?”[u]pon production of copies pursuant to a notice to produce, the producing party admits the correctness of the copies and further proof is unnecessary in order for the moving party[, i.e., the requesting party,] to introduce them into evidence? but where in the present case the emails sought to be admitted were produced by defendants, i.e. the party seeking their admission, and thus Willis was inapplicable

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, collect on open account

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Dirickson v. State, 2009 WL 195744 (Ark. App. Jan. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court?s ruling allowing admission of transcripts of online chats into evidence was affirmed where such evidence was considered ??original? in the context of computers? under the rules of evidence and thus satisfied the Best Evidence Rule; court reasoned that even if the transcripts had not satisfied Best Evidence Rule, transcripts were admissible as copies because the originals had been destroyed, but not in bad faith, and the transcripts (?duplicates?) were authenticated by the officer?s testimony regarding how the transcripts were created and the reliability of their content

Nature of Case: Internet stalking

Electronic Data Involved: Transcripts of online chat

State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court erred in admitting computer generated animation allegedly depicting the events that lead to trial where State failed to provide notice of its intent to use the animation, where the animation was created by a non-expert witness who lacked personal knowledge of the events, and where the State failed to lay a foundation for the evidence based on the incorrect assumption that the animation was merely demonstrative; appellate court determined animation was more prejudicial than probative where it did not merely illustrate a witness?s testimony but rather was ?a collage of information? from each of the State?s witnesses presented as fact

Nature of Case: Attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, attempted armed robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated animation

State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009)

Key Insight: Having previously established a standard for the authentication of computer generated evidence in State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781,847 A.2d 921 (2004), court highlighted distinction between ?technologies that may be characterized as merely presenting evidence and those that are more accurately described as creating evidence? and held that unmodified surveillance footage did not constitute computer generated evidence for purposes of Swinton; testimony of camera operator that the footage presented to the court was the same footage he observed when the images were originally captured was sufficient to authenticate the unmodified video; court?s admission of modified video footage was harmless error

Nature of Case: Sale of narcotics

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.