Joaquin Enrique Bustos Jacinto

2017-89685

I-D

Legal Bibliography

The evolution of technology has resulted in not just more sophisticated means of
communications but also ways to commit crimes and felonies.1 However, where technology has
evolved, so too have the courts of law. Documentary evidence now encompasses electronic
mediums such as e-mail and chat messages.2 This acceptance however is something which is not
automatic. The spontaneous and very nature of e-mails and chat messages as modes of
communication between individuals has necessitated the need of certain considerations to be met
in order to be considered as admissible evidence to the courts of law.3

Whether the source is traditional or electronic it must first be authenticated. E-mails and
chat messages were to be held to the same standards of authentication as other types of
documents.4 The governing rules of such authentication federally in the United States are Federal
Rule of Evidence 901(a) and methods of authentication are listed in 901(b) and under Rule
901(b)(4).5

The process of authentication of a document is essential as it is there to establish that a

document is what it purports to be and that there is a relationship between the document and an
individual.6 Proper authentication is vital due to the e-mails and chat messages being central
modes of communication in modern society and also due to the ease in which these mediums can
be created, altered, and manipulated by third parties.7 This makes it of paramount urgency to
prove that it was it was legitimately written and sent by the purported sender.8 Other methods in

1
106 Am. Jur. Trials 351 (2007)
2
100 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 89 (2008)
3
106 Am. Jur. Trials 351 (2007)
4
People v. Chromik, 946 N.E.2d 1039 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2011).
5
100 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 89; Fed. R. Evid. Rule 901.; Fed. R. Evid. Rule 901(b)(4)
6
34 A.L.R.6th 253 (2008)
7
Dickens v. State, 175 Md. App. 231, 927 A.2d 32, 34 A.L.R.6th 723 (2007)
8
34 A.L.R.6th 253 (2008)
which an e-mail or chat message can be authenticated includes the contents and events of the
messages being corroborated by witnesses.9

Simon vs. State10 held that courts could admit as authenticated evidence e-mails or chat
messages in which simple testimony and acknowledgement by the sender and receiver of the
email or instant message can already effectively establish authenticity. The court also established
that circumstantial evidence could be used in order to authenticate emails and chat messages.

The case of Donati v. State further reinforces this claim by holding e-mails, and chat
messages could be authenticated by circumstantial evidence as long as it allows one to
determine that they are what the proponent claims to be. 11 The name of the alleged sender of the
email or chat message is written as the author or sender is insufficient, however, when not
supported by other circumstantial evidence, which must be present to show reasonable
connection to the sender.12 Such reasonable connection to the sender is not just limited to the
physical whereabouts and address of the sender from where the e-mail and chat message came
from but also high probability of the identity of the sender is one and the same.13 Finally, e-mails
and other similar sources must also be authenticated by its appearance, contents, substance, or
other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with the circumstances, to support a finding
that the document is what the proponent claims it to be.14

9
State v. Bohlman, 2006 WL 915765 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
10
Simon v. State, 279 Ga. App. 844, 632 S.E.2d 723 (2006)
11
Md.Rule 5901(b)(4).; Donati v. State, 84 A.3d 156 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014).
12
Com. v. Gilman, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 752, 54 N.E.3d 1120 (2016).
13
Rules of Evid., Rule 901, 42 Pa.C.S.A; Com. v. Koch, 2011 PA Super 201, 2011 WL 4336634
(2011)
14
Rules of Evid., Rules 104, 901.; Sennett v. State, 406 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App. Eastland 2013).