My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
Okay we're doing research and have been getting so many different answers on this question and if someone is knowledgeable that would be great. We read on the ABA site that to authenticate text evidence is a two step process. "As a “first step, you need to get the technical portion correct and show that the message came from a device under the control of the person” at issue, advises D. Grayson Yeargin, Washington, D.C., cochair of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Criminal Litigation Committee. The second step requires using “circumstantial evidence” to show that the person actually sent the text message, Yeargin says." We understand the first part to mean that the defendant needs to be tied to the device? But we been told different things by different lawyers. Some say you don't need to do the first part and circumstantial is enough others say the opposite? Which is true? It seems to us the burden of proof is pretty low if all that is needed is somone taking the stand saying yes so-and-so sent me the text messages.
Example: If messages are older then two years, the defendant no longer has the device and the text messages were sent from a third party text application? Is circumstantial evidence enough? All the cases we read and looked up the defendant was in possession of the device and we could find no cases where a third party text application was used.
Okay we're doing research and have been getting so many different answers on this question and if someone is knowledgeable that would be great. We read on the ABA site that to authenticate text evidence is a two step process. "As a “first step, you need to get the technical portion correct and show that the message came from a device under the control of the person” at issue, advises D. Grayson Yeargin, Washington, D.C., cochair of the ABA Section of Litigation’s Criminal Litigation Committee. The second step requires using “circumstantial evidence” to show that the person actually sent the text message, Yeargin says." We understand the first part to mean that the defendant needs to be tied to the device? But we been told different things by different lawyers. Some say you don't need to do the first part and circumstantial is enough others say the opposite? Which is true? It seems to us the burden of proof is pretty low if all that is needed is somone taking the stand saying yes so-and-so sent me the text messages.
Example: If messages are older then two years, the defendant no longer has the device and the text messages were sent from a third party text application? Is circumstantial evidence enough? All the cases we read and looked up the defendant was in possession of the device and we could find no cases where a third party text application was used.
Pretrial Procedure: Authenticating Text Evidence
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire