617 S.E.2d 262 (2005)
In which the defendant was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, among other charges. During the course of the trial, social media evidence consisting of online chat conversations, among other posts, was introduced defendant, who objected, claiming the evidence was not properly authenticated. The court disagreed, and held that electronic computer messages are held to the same standards of authentication as other similar evidence.
Case No. 02 C 3293. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2005)
The defendant offered printouts from the plaintiff’s website as it appeared years earlier. To authenticate the printouts, the defendant offered an affidavit from the administrative director for the Internet Archive Company, the company that retrieved the historic website images, verifying that the Internet Archive Company retrieved copies of the website as it appeared on the dates in question from its electronic archives.” The plaintiff objected to the evidence as not properly authenticated. The court rejected that argument, finding that Federal Rule of Evidence 901 “requires only a prima facie showing of genuineness and leaves it to the jury to decide the true authenticity and probative value of the evidence.” Admittedly, the Internet Archive does not fit neatly into any of the non-exhaustive examples listed in Rule 901; the Internet Archive is a relatively new source for archiving websites. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has presented no evidence that the Internet Archive is unreliable or biased. And Plaintiff has neither denied that the exhibit represents the contents of its website on the dates in question, nor come forward with its own evidence challenging the veracity of the exhibit.
(M.D. Fla. 2005)
In which the court held that websites are not self-authenticating.
878 A.2d 91 (2005)
In which the court addressed defendant’s appeal from his conviction for aggravated assault. Appellant argued that the instant messages should not have been admitted because it was not proved that he was the author. He contended that given the inherent unreliability of e-mail or instant messages, it was incumbent upon the Commonwealth to authenticate the documents. The court concluded that the documents were admissible and properly authenticated through the use of circumstantial evidence. In so doing, the court held that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims,” and that evidence is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as any other document to determine whether or not there has been an adequate foundational showing of relevance and authenticity.