Tag:Admissibility

1
Williams v. Long, 585 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Md. 2008)
2
Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)
3
Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)
4
Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)
5
United States v. Worthington, ARMY 20040396, 2006 WL 6625258 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2006)
6
U.S. v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000)

Williams v. Long, 585 F. Supp. 2d 679 (D. Md. 2008)

Key Insight: Printouts from government websites were self-authenticating pursuant to ER 902(5) where the printouts were published online by a public authority and where the printouts contained identifying information, including the URL and the name of the public entity; acquisition of website printout through FOIA request where website was not available to the public did not prevent self-authentication of the printout; printouts were exceptions to the rule of hearsay pursuant to ER 803(8)

Nature of Case: Violations of FLSA and Wage and Hour Law

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy print outs of government websites

Washington v. State, 961 A.2d 1110 (Md. 2008)

Key Insight: Court of Appeals reversed Special Court of Appeals and remanded case for new trial based on State?s failure to properly authenticate surveillance video where State entered video into evidence but provided no testimony as to ?the process used, the manner of the operation of the cameras, the reliability of authenticity of its images, or the chain of custody of the pictures?

Nature of Case: First degree assault and related offenses

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Varkonyi v. State, 276 S.W. 3d 27 (Tex. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court found that pornographic video attached to an email from defendant was properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) where, considering the ?appearance, contents, substance and other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances,? the video was found to be what it was purported to be and where, applying the ?reply letter doctrine? the video was considered to be genuine and admissible in light of the fact that it was sent in response to a message sent by the government inquiring about the video, among other things

Nature of Case: Promotion of or possession with intent to promote obscene material

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic video attachment to email

Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)

Key Insight: In this seminal case, District Court Judge Paul Grimm held that the failure of both parties to adhere to the rules of evidence precluded entry of summary judgment and discussed at length and in great detail the admissibility of electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Action to enforce a private arbitrator?s award

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Worthington, ARMY 20040396, 2006 WL 6625258 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: Emails properly authenticated by: name of alleged sender in email address (brian.worthing@us.army.mil), by testimony that recipient recognized return address and had previously received emails from the same, by testimony that the emails were consistent with the way appellant talked and by testimony that the emails were consistent with conversations and experiences of the alleged sender, e.g. the first email referred to defendant?s loss of his wallet in Kuwait, an event that was corroborated by a testifying witness

Nature of Case: Court martial

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

U.S. v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that an email was adequately authenticated by, among other things, the presence of defendant?s email address and the context and content of the email and was ?within its discretion? to deny hearsay objections to the introduction of the email because it was both an admission by a party AND was not hearsay in the first place where it was admitted to show the correspondents?? ?relationship and custom of communicating by e-mail.?

Nature of Case: Fraud, false statements to a federal agency, and obstruction of a federal investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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