“I SAW IT ON , NOW HOW DO I USE IT AT TRIAL?”

MICHAEL SAWICKI (with special assistance from Brandi Concienne) Sawicki & Lauten, L.L.P. 4040 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 850 Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 468-8844 (214) 468-8845 (Fax) [email protected]

State Bar of Texas 3RD ANNUAL BUSINESS TORTS INSTITUTE 2011 October 13 – 14, 2011 Houston

CHAPTER 20 “I Saw It On Facebook, Now How Do I Use It At Trial?” Chapter 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. THE IMPACT OF NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...... 1 A. Kwame Kilpatrick ...... 2 B. Verdict ...... 4 C. Facebook DWI ...... 5

III. SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ...... 5

IV. WHAT CAN YOU FIND ON FACEBOOK? ...... 7

V. MYSPACE FEATURES ...... 9 A. Bulletins...... 10 B. Groups ...... 10 C. MySpaceIM ...... 10 D. MySpaceTV ...... 10 E. Applications ...... 10 F. MySpace Mobile ...... 10 G. MySpace News ...... 10 H. MySpace Classifieds ...... 11 I. MySpace Karaoke ...... 11 J. MySpace Polls ...... 11 K. MySpace forums ...... 11

VI OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ...... 11 A. ...... 11 B. Linked In ...... 11 C. Ryze.com ...... 12 D. Affluence.org ...... 12 E. Buzznet.com ...... 12 F. DeviantArt ...... 12 G. Reunion.com ...... 12 H. VampireFreaks.com ...... 13 I. ...... 13 J. Twitter ...... 13

VII. PRIVACY AND SECURITY ...... 14

VIII. USING EVIDENCE IN COURT ...... 14 A. Discovery Issues ...... 14 B. Comment Number 3 to the Rule states ...... 15 C. Finding Social Networking Evidence ...... 15 D. Legal issues- General Concerns About Admissibility of Social Networking Evidence ...... 16 E. Authentication ...... 16 F. Authentication under the Federal Rules ...... 17 G. Relevance and undue prejudice ...... 17 H. Hearsay ...... 18 I. Best evidence ...... 18

IX. OTHER USES OF SOCIAL NETWORKING EVIDENCE ...... 18 A. Jury Selection ...... 18 i “I Saw It On Facebook, Now How Do I Use It At Trial?” Chapter 20

B. Current Texas Social Networking Cases ...... 19 1. Mann v. Department of Family and Protective Services, 2009 WL 2961396 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.], 2009) ...... 19 2. Munoz v. State, 2009 WL 695462 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2009) ...... 19 3. Draker v. Schrieber, 271 S.W.3d 318, (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2008, no writ) ...... 20 4. In Re Rodney Reed, 2009 WL 97260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (not reported) ...... 20 5. Williford v. State, 127 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.‐ Eastland 2004) ...... 20 C. Social Networking Cases outside of Texas ...... 20 1. State v. Altajir, 123 Conn.App. 674, --- A.2d ----, 2010 WL 3489049 (Conn. App. 2010) ...... 20 2. Jabbar v. Travel Services, Inc., 2010 WL 3563112 (D.Puerto Rico, 2010) ...... 20 3. Griffin v. State, 192 Md.App. 518, 995 A.2d 791 (Md.App., 2010) ...... 21 4. Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 2293238 (C.D.Cal., 2010) ...... 23 5. Bass ex rel. Bass v. Miss Porter's School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D.Conn., 2009) ...... 24 6. Maldonado v. Municipality of Barceloneta, 2009 WL 636016 (D.Puerto Rico, 2009)...... 24

X. CASES OF GENERAL INTEREST ...... 24 A. Email Authentication ...... 24 1. U.S. v. Sidiqui, (11th Cir. 2000) 235 F.3d 1318 ...... 24 2. People v. Von Gunten, (2002 Cal.App.3d Dist.) 2002 WL 501612. [Unpublished.] ...... 25 B. On-line Evidence Admissibility ...... 25 1. United States v. Brand, 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. January 12, 2005) ...... 25 2. Hammontree v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) ‐‐‐ S.E.2d ‐‐‐‐, 2007 WL 547763 ...... 25 3. U.S. v. Burt, (7th Cir.,July 26, 2007) 495 F.3d 733 ...... 25 4. Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, (D.Md. May 4, 2007) 241 F.R.D. 534 ...... 25 5. People v. Hawkins, (June 2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428 ...... 25 6. EEOC v. E.I dupont de Nemours & Co., 2004 WL 2347559, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 706, ...... 25 7. Telewizja Polska USA, Inc., v. Echostar Satellite Corp., (N.D. Ill.2004) 2004 WL 2367740 [Not Reported] Archived versions of web site content, stored and available at a third party web site, were admissible into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The contents of the web site could also be considered an admission of a party opponent, and thus are not barred by the hearsay rule...... 25 C. Authentication of Screen Name ...... 25 1. People v. Von Gunten, (2002 Cal.App.3d Dist.) 2002 WL 501612. [Unpublished.] ...... 25 D. Introduction of Web Sites ...... 25 1. EEOC v. E.I dupont de Nemours & Co., 2004 WL 2347559, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 706, ...... 25 2. Telewizja Polska USA, Inc., v. Echostar Satellite Corp., (N.D. Ill.2004) 2004 WL 2367740 [Not Reported] ...... 25 3. Bass v. Miss Porter’s Sch., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99916 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009 ...... 25

XI. TEXAS CASES OF GENERAL INTEREST ...... 26 A. Faxes ...... 26 B. Computer Printouts ...... 26 C. Emails and chat room transcripts ...... 26 D. Websites ...... 26 E. Digital video ...... 27 F. Automated computer-generated records ...... 27 G. Chain of custody ...... 27

XII. ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ...... 27 A. Truthfulness in Statements to Others ...... 27 B. New duty to advise clients? ...... 28

ii