Abejo, Francisco Emilio B

2011-41294
1-D
Legal Bibliography
How does one prove email and chat messages before a state or federal court?

Through the course of time, the frequent change in technology has resulted in the
advance of our means of communication. These advances also brought a more
sophisticated way of committing felonies.1 These advancements in technologies have also
brought about changes and advances to our courts of law. An example of these
advancements is that documents and evidences now include the electronic modes of
communication such as e-mails and chat messages. These new sources of evidence may
not be held automatically. Due to their nature of these modes of communication, these
evidences should pass through some kind of filter committee in order for the courts to
consider these new sources of evidence.2

The rules that are set in the authentication of such evidences are enumerated in the
Rules of Evidence, Rule 901, stating that; To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.3 Proper authentication
must be done due to the nature of these e-mails and messages being primary mode of
communication for some individuals. And this can be altered, recreated, and manipulated
by interested third arties.4 This makes it vital or of paramount urgency5 to prove the
legitimacy of these types of evidences were actually written and sent by the purported
sender of the e-mails or chat messages.6 If the evidences are not authenticated correctly,
an innocent may be unlawfully sentenced. Other methods in which an e-mail or chat

1 106, Am. Jur. Trials 351 (2007)

2 106, Am. Jur. Trials 351 (2007)
3 100, Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d, 89; Fed. R. Evid. Rule 901.; Fed. R. Evid. Rule 901(a)
4 Dickens v. State, 175 Md. App 231, 927 A.2d 32, 34 A.L.R.6th 723 (2007)
5 34 A.L.R.6th 253 (2008)
6 State vs. Bohlman, 2006, WL 915765 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
message can be authenticated includes the contents and events of the messages being
corroborated by witnesses.7

Further claims reinforce these authenticated evidence e-mails and chat messages
such like what was stated in the case of Donati vs. State where as long as it allows
one to determine that they are what the prominent claims to be.8 Meaning the evidences
to prove its authentication must be sufficient to present reasonable evidence with
connection to the sender.9 The physical whereabouts in connection to when and when the
e-mail of messages were sent communicate to a high probability of the identity of the
sender comes from the same individual or group of persons.10 Lastly, e-mails and other
sources of cyber messages the can be used a evidence, must also be authenticated by its
appearance, contents, substance, or other distinctive characteristics, taking into
consideration the circumstances, to support a finding that the document is what the
alleged claims it to be.11

7 State v. Bohlman, 2006 WL 915765 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)

8 Md. Rule 5-901(b)(4),; Donati vs State, p84 A.3d156(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014)
9 Com. v. Gilman, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 752, 54 N.E.3d 1120 (2016)
10Rules of Evid., Rule 901, 42 Pa.C.S.A; Com. v. Koch, 2011 PA Super 201, 2011 WL
4336634 (2011)
11Rules of Evid., Rules 104, 901.; Sennett v. State, 406 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App. Eastland
2013).