Schedule a Demo

BLOG

See the latest news and insights around Information Governance, eDiscovery, Enterprise Collaboration, and Social Media. 

All Posts

Inadmissibility of Social Media Printouts

United States v. Vayner 2014

2014 was a landmark year in establishing the admissibility and stance of screenshots and printouts of social media in litigation, with one of the more notable examples of this being the evaluation of a printout from the Russian equivalent of Facebook (VK.com) in United States v. Vayner.

 

Social Media Printout as Evidence

In this instance, the Second Circuit Court overruled the defendant’s conviction “on a single charge of transfer of a false identification document”. The Court held that the District Court had initially erred in accepting a mere printout of a social media page as admissible evidence, stating that the “government presented insufficient evidence that the page was what the government claimed it to be – that is, Zhyltsou’s [named Defendant’s] profile page, as opposed to a profile page on the Internet that Zhyltsou did not create or control”.

Although the connection the government attempted to make was between Zhyltsou and the email address used for accessing the social media account in question, it was held that there was no substantial or admissible evidence to account for the printout provided as having been authored by the defendant or in any other way deemed as authentic evidence.

 

Witness Testimony v. Rule of Authentication

Although the leading detective in this case provided a testimony in support of the images and name on the social media account matching the Defendant’s identity, this was deemed not to be satisfactory circumstantial evidence in favour of authenticating the document.

Rule 901, Federal Rules of Evidence require that there be some basis beyond a witness testimony on which a reasonable juror could conclude that the page in question was not just any Internet page, but in fact the authentic page of whom the Plaintiff claimed it to be. No such showing was made and the evidence should therefore have been excluded.

For social media evidence, “the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the term is what the proponent claims it is”.

The court took this ruling to, once again, provide a definition of Rule 901 authentication standards; a reasonable juror must be in favour of authentication and that this level of authentication is context specific.

Get authenticated evidence from Social Media, Blogs and Websites with WebPreserver Technology.

 

Browse. Click. Evidence.

WebPreserver technology creates authenticated, evidentiary standard snapshots from content on social media, blogs and websites for use in litigation. With the simple, efficient use of a Plug-in and single-click capture technology, snapshots are created and saved in digitally signed PDF and WARC formats, to archive and share with clients and colleagues and use in litigation.

Authentication is ensured by way of an automated Digital signature and timestamp on each Snapshot, in compliance with the E-Sign Act, Federal Rules of Evidence and other standards of regulatory compliance. Metadata versions of content are also saved and secured for additional circumstantial evidence in support of your digital content.

This simplified, secure technology is suitable for litigation support, legal professionals, law enforcement authorities, digital forensic experts and more. Additional features include the option to download or save your digital content on our user-friendly online platform. Organise in folders, with the use of keyword tagging or make available to those involved in your case or company.

 

The information and materials on this blog are provided for general and informative purposes only and are not intended to be construed as legal advice. Content on this blog is not intended to substitute the advice of a licensed attorney, as laws are subject to change and vary with time, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Content on this blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.

Related Posts

Executive Summary: 2024 ESI Risk Management & Litigation Readiness Report

Managing electronically stored information (ESI) is a challenge for most organizations today. Numerous, diverse data sources, from websites and social media accounts to internal chat platforms, are creating huge volumes of information, making eDiscovery, litigation readiness, and responding to requests for ESI difficult, if not impossible.

Expert Advice: New Study Reveals Top 3 ESI & Litigation Readiness Challenges

Did you know that nearly 1/3 of companies have been fined by courts or regulatory agencies because the organization couldn’t respond in time to requests for electronically stored information (ESI)?

SEC Rule 17a-3 & FINRA Records Retention Requirements Explained

Financial industry recordkeeping regulatory requirements like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rules 4511 and 2210, play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the U.S. financial markets. These regulations are not just bureaucratic formalities; their oversight involves ensuring that financial services firms adhere to stringent record retention requirements, essential for the transparency, accountability, and trust that underpin the financial system.