Post on 04-Jun-2018
transcript
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
1/48
Fr i endi ng t he Feder al Rul es: An Anal ysi s of Facebook Li kes
Under t he Federal Rul es of Evi dence
Mol l y D. McPar t l and
Abstract: Soci al Medi a i s an i mpor t ant par t of our l i ves. Newways t o communi cate usi ng soci al medi a ar e const ant l y emergi ng,and t he i nf l uence of soci al medi a on our cul t ur e and i n ourcour t r ooms i s bound t o i ncr ease. Asi de f r om t he Vi r gi ni aDi st r i ct Cour t s bl under i n Bland v. Robertshol di ng t hat a l i ke i s not pr ot ect ed by the Fi r st Amendment cour t s have yett o deal wi t h nonver bal soci al medi a cont ent such as Facebook l i kes . Thi s Not e expl ai ns why cour t s shoul d appl y t he exi st i ngFeder al Rul es of Evi dence excl udi ng hear say and al l owi ngadopt i ve admi ssi ons t o Facebook l i kes and ot her nonver bal
soci al medi a cont ent . Thi s Not e ar gues agai nst r ef or mi ng theFeder al Rul es as par t i es i ncr easi ngl y use nonver bal soci al medi acont ent i n t he cour t r oom.
Tabl e of Cont ent s
I . I NTRODUCTI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I I . BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. What Is a Facebook Like?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2B. The Federal Rules of Evidence Governing Hearsay. . 3
1. St at ement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3a. Asser t i ons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4b. Grammat i cal Constr uct i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Decl arant and Out of Cour tSt at ement Component s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Tr ut h of t he Mat t er Asser t ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10C. The Hearsay Exemption for Adoptive Admissions. . . 12
1. Nonverbal Conduct as Adopt i ve Admi ss i ons . 132. E- Mai l For war di ng as Adopt i ve Admi ssi ons . 15
I I I . ANALYZI NG A LI KE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16A. Likes Constitute Hearsay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. St at ement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162. Decl arant and Made Out of Cour t
Component s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193. Tr ut h of t he Mat t er Asser t ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Likes Qualify as Adoptive Admissions. . . . . . . . . . 21I V. CONCLUSI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
2/48
1I . I NTRODUCTI ONI nf or mat i on obt ai ned f r om t he I nt er net has t r ansf or med f r om
voodoo i nf ormat i on i i nt o an exceedi ngl y val uabl e and commonl y
used t ool f or gat her i ng i nf or mat i on. The i ncr easi ng wi l l i ngness
of cour t s t o admi t I nt er net cont ent as evi dence has l ed schol ar s
t o consi der whati f anyuni que evi dent i ary pr obl ems I nt ernet
cont ent may pose. i i Schol ar s have cal l ed f or adapt at i ons t o
cur r ent l aw based on t he l aw s gener al si l ence about t he use of
t echnol ogy i n var i ous ar eas of t he l egal pr of essi on. i i i The
soci al - net wor ki ng si t e Facebooki v has great l y i mpact ed I nt er net
communi cat i on and has st eadi l y worked i t s way i nt o t he
court r oom. v
Facebook i s qui ckl y becomi ng ubi qui t ous, wi t h one bi l l i on
mont hl y act i ve user s as of Oct ober 2012. vi Facebook was cr eated
t o f aci l i t at e wor l dwi de communi cat i on and awar eness of wor l d
i ssues, and as a f or m of sel f - expr essi on. vi i Based on Facebook s
user s tat i s t i cs , vi i i t hi s f or m of communi cat i on l i kel y wi l l r emai n
a par t of peopl e s l i ves i n t he f or eseeabl e f ut ur e. Facebook i s
deepl y engr ai ned i n our soci et y. i x Facebook and ot her f orms of
el ect r oni c medi a ar e an i ncr easi ngl y common f or m of
communi cat i on and expr essi on. Theref ore, cour t s must addr ess t he
admi ssi bi l i t y of soci al medi a cont ent i n t r i al s.
Thi s Not e ar gues t hat Facebook l i kes const i t ute adopt i ve
admi ss i ons under t he Federal Rul es of Evi dence and t hat
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
3/48
2ef f ect i vel y anal yzi ng l i kes as hear say does not r equi r e any
change to t he cur r ent Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. Par t I I
expl ai ns what a l i ke i s and gi ves a basi c over vi ew of t he
Federal Rul es of Evi dence governi ng hear say and adopt i ve
admi ssi ons. Par t I I I ar gues t hat a l i ke const i t ut es hear say
and i l l ust r at es t hat l i kes al so qual i f y f or t he adopt i ve
admi ss i ons hear say exempt i on. Par t I V summar i zes t he ar gument s
t hi s Not e pr esent s.
I I . BACKGROUNDThi s Par t expl ai ns t he concept of a Facebook l i ke and
di scusses t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence as t hey rel at e t o
hear say and adopt i ve admi ss i ons.
A. What I s a Facebook Li ke ?Thi s Subpar t descr i bes a Facebook l i ke t hrough t he use of
a hypot het i cal Facebook user named J ane. J ane l i kes cont ent
post ed by one of her Facebook f r i endsor per haps even a
st r anger by cl i cki ng on t he l i ke but t on bel ow t he cont ent as
i t appear s on her Facebook. x However , when J ane cl i cks t he l i ke
but t on, a st or y appear s i n her f r i ends News Feed an i nst ant
st r eam of Facebook updat es f r om a user s Facebook f r i endsxi wi t h
a l i nk back to J ane s page. xi i Af t er J ane cl i cks l i ke, anyonexi i i
abl e t o vi ew t he or i gi nal cont ent J ane l i ked or who i s abl e t o
vi ew J ane s Facebook wi l l see t hat J ane has l i ked t he
cont ent . xi v Text pr ocl ai mi ng J ane l i kes t hi s wi l l appear bel ow
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
4/48
3t he cont ent wi t h J ane s name as a hyper l i nk t o her own Facebook
page and an i con of t he t humbs- up si gn. xv
Ther e ar e di f f er ent r easons J ane may cl i ck l i ke . J ane may
l i ke cont ent because she f i nds i t humor ous, because she agr ees
wi t h what t he cont ent says, or because she wi shes t o suppor t
what t he cont ent r epr esent s. xvi Whi l e J ane may l i ke t hi ngs f or
di f f er ent r easons, each t i me she l i kes somet hi ng, she
compl et es an i nt ent i onal act i onxvi i cl i cki ngi n or der t o
communi cat e wi t h anot her per son. Thi s Not e exami nes how t he
Federal Rul es of Evi dence addr essi ng hear say and t he hear say
except i on f or adopt i ve admi ssi ons appl y t o a Facebook l i ke .
B.The Federal Rules of Evidence Governing HearsayThe Feder al Rul es of Evi dence gover n admi ssi bi l i t y of
evi dence i n t r i al . xvi i i The Feder al Rul es of evi dence general l y
excl ude hear say evi dence f r om admi ssi on i n t r i al . xi x A pi ece of
evi dence must cont ai n f our component s i n order t o qual i f y as
hear say: ( 1) t he evi dence must be a st atement , ( 2) made by a
decl ar ant , ( 3) made out si de of t he cour t r oom, and ( 4) of f er ed
f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed. xx
1. Stat ementThe Feder al Rul es of Evi dence def i ne a st at ement as a
per son s or al asser t i on, wr i t t en, or nonver bal conduct , i f t he
per son i nt ended i t as an asser t i on. xxi Thi s Subpar t f i r st
addr esses how cour t s have general l y determi ned what const i t ut es
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
5/48
4an asser t i on. Next , i t addr esses how cour t s anal yze t he
gr ammat i cal const r uct i on of a st atement and how t hat
const r uct i on af f ect s whet her evi dence i s a st at ement .
a. Asser t i ons
Though t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence do not expl i ci t l y
def i ne asser t i on, t he r equi r ement t hat a st at ement be an
asser t i on i s a cr uci al el ement i n t he hear say anal ysi s. The
cl osest t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence come t o def i ni ng
asser t i on i s t he st at ement t hat not hi ng i s an asser t i on
unl ess i nt ended t o be one. xxi i Most anal yses det ermi ni ng whet her
a st at ement i s an asser t i on cent er ar ound whet her a decl ar ant
i nt ends t he st at ement as an asser t i on.
I n United States v. Zenni, a Uni t ed St at es di st r i ct cour t
i n Kent ucky addr essed t he def i ni t i on of an asser t i on under t he
Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. xxi i i The cour t di f f er ent i at ed bet ween
asser t i ons and i mpl i ed asser t i ons. xxi v The Zenni cour t hel d
t hat t he Feder al Rul es est abl i sh t hat i mpl i ed asser t i ons do not
const i t ut e hear say by pr ovi di ng t hat no or al or wr i t t en
expr essi on [ i s] t o be consi der ed as hear say, unl ess i t [ i s] an
asser t i on concer ni ng t he mat t er sought t o be pr oved and t hat
no nonver bal conduct shoul d be consi der ed as hear say, unl ess i t
[ i s] i nt ended t o be an asser t i on concer ni ng sai d mat t er . xxv
Ther ef or e, f or a st at ement t o be an asser t i on, t he decl ar ant
must i ntend an el ement of communi cat i on. xxvi
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
6/48
5I n hol di ng t hat t he Feder al Rul es f ai l t o excl ude i mpl i ed
asser t i ons as hear say, t he Zenni cour t ci t ed a f amous exampl e
i nvol vi ng a sea capt ai n. xxvi i
xxvi i i
The sea capt ai n exampl e asks: I s
i t hear say t o of f er as pr oof of t he seawor t hi ness of a vessel
t hat i t s capt ai n, af t er t hor oughl y i nspect i ng i t , embar ked on an
ocean voyage upon i t wi t h hi s f ami l y? The Zenni cour t hel d
t hat t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence excl ude thi s t ype of conduct
f r om const i t ut i ng hear say because t he decl ar ant i n t he exampl e
t he sea capt ai ndoes not i nt end t o communi cat e anyt hi ng t o t he
out si de wor l d. xxi x Because t he sea capt ai n s conduct was non-
asser t i ve, meani ng i t was not intended t o communi cat e hi s bel i ef
i n t he t r ust wor t hi ness of t he vessel , t he conduct escapes
excl usi on under t he r ul e excl udi ng hear say. xxx
However , not al l nonver bal conduct i s i mmune f r om t he
hear say rul e. Some nonver bal conduct , such as t he act of
poi nt i ng t o i dent i f y a suspect i n a l i neup, i s cl ear l y t he
equi val ent of wor ds, asser t i ve i n nat ur e, and [ i s] t o be
r egarded as a st atement .
xxxi i
xxxi Ther ef or e, var i ous t ypes of
nonver bal conduct qual i f y as hear say as l ong as t he decl ar ant
has an i nt ent i on t o communi cate. Cour t s have hel d t hat nonver bal
conduct i n t he f or m of gest ur i ng or poi nt i ng al so const i t ut es
conduct i nt ended as an asser t i on.
Whi l e cour t s have not addr essed whet her a l i ke qual i f i es
as a st at ement f or pur poses of hear say, a di st r i ct cour t i n
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
7/48
6Vi r gi ni a r ecent l y hel d t hat l i kes ar e not st at ement s i n t he
Fi r st Amendment context . xxxi i i
xxxi v
xxxvi
I n Bland v. Roberts, sever al
of f i cer s ar gued t hat t hey wer e f i r ed f or l i ki ng t he Facebook
page of t hei r super vi sor s opponent f or Sher i f f . The of f i cer s
asser t ed t hat l i ki ng t he page const i t ut ed a st at ement of
suppor t . xxxv The cour t di sagr eed.
The cour t i n Bland hel d t hat mer el y l i ki ng a Facebook
page i s i nsuf f i ci ent speech t o mer i t const i t ut i onal
pr ot ecti on. xxxvi i
xxxvi i i
xxxi x
I n cases where cour t s have f ound t hat
const i t ut i onal speech pr ot ect i ons ext ended t o Facebook post s,
act ual st at ement s exi st ed wi t hi n t he r ecor d. The cour t
f ound t hat wi t hout a ver bal st at ement , a l i ke f ai l s t o war r ant
const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on.
Many have si nce cr i t i ci zed t he Bland cour t f or t he hol di ng
t hat a l i ke i s not pr ot ect ed speech. xl The r ul i ng i mpl i es t hat
a l i ke may be suf f i ci ent t o communi cate a message t hat may
l ead t o your t er mi nat i on, but i nsuf f i ci ent t o war r ant Fi r st
Amendment prot ect i ons. xl i I n an ami cus cur i ae br i ef f or Bl and s
appeal of t he l ower cour t s deci si on, t he Amer i can Ci vi l
Li ber t i es Uni on ( ACLU) st at ed t hat [ l ] i ki ng somet hi ng on
Facebook expr esses a cl ear messageone recogni zed by mi l l i ons of
Facebook users and non- Facebook user sand i s bot h pure speech
and symbol i c expr essi on . . . . xl i i The ACLU not ed t hat a l i ke
publ i shes t ext t hat l i t er al l y st at es t hat t he user l i kes
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
8/48
7somet hi ng[ ] xl i i i and di st r i but es t he uni ver sal l y under st ood
t humbs up symbol . xl i v When a Facebook user l i kes a pol i t i cal
candi dat e, as t he of f i cer s di d i n Bland, t he l i ke
i s a cl ear si gn of suppor t f or t hat candi dat e.Si mi l ar l y, when a user Li kes a movi e, t el evi si onshow, or game, i t shows t hat he or she enj oys t hatpr oduct . Or i f a user Li kes anot her user s commentor post , he or she i s expr essi ng approval of t hei nf or mat i on conveyed by t hat ot her user . xl v
Whi l e t he st andar d f or whet her a pi ece of evi dence qual i f i es as
a st at ement f or const i t ut i onal pur poses di f f er s f r om t he
r equi r ement t hat a st atement must be an asser t i on f or hear say
pur poses,
xl vi i
xl vi i i
xl vi t he Vi r gi ni a Di st r i ct Cour t s hol di ng and t he st r ong
adver se posi t i on of t he ACLU ar e i nf or mat i ve. The ACLU ci t es t he
common underst andi ng of t he meani ng of a l i ke. Facebook,
whi ch al so f i l ed an ami cus cur i ae br i ef suppor t i ng
consti t ut i onal pr ot ect i on f or l i kes, agr eed t hat l i kes ar e
i nherent l y communi cat i ve. Facebook s br i ef i mpl i ed t hat
l i ki ng cont ent i s l i ke speaki ng, stat i ng t hat [ i ] f [ t he
of f i cer ] had st ood on a st r eet cor ner and announced I l i ke J i m
Adams f or Hampt on Sher i f f , t her e woul d be no di sput e that hi s
st at ement was const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed speech. xl i x Facebook and
t he ACLU t her ef or e agr ee that a l i ke i s a t ool t o communi cat e
one s bel i ef s and f eel i ngs.
Facebook and the ACLU ar e not t he onl y ent i t i es t hat
r eact ed negat i vel y t o t he Bland r ul i ng. Lawyer s and l aw
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
9/48
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
10/48
9apar t ment .
l xi i i
l xvi i
l xi i On t he ot her end of t he l i ne, a voi ce asked i f
Kei t h st i l l had any st uf f . The of f i cer asked t he cal l er what
she meant , and t he cal l er r esponded a f i f t y. Long obj ected
t o thi s evi dence as hearsay because t he st atement s cont ai ned an
i mpl i ci t asser t i on t hat he was i nvol ved i n deal i ng dr ugs. l xi v The
cour t not ed t hat t he key quest i on when det ermi ni ng whether a
st at ement const i t ut es hear say asks whet her an asser t i on i s
i nt ent i onal or uni nt ent i onal . l xv Whi l e any quest i on arguabl y
cont ai ns an i mpl i ci t message, uni nt ent i onal messages do not
pr esent t he same hear say dangers as i nt ent i onal messages. l xvi
Because t he cour t l acked evi dence that t he cal l er meant t o
communi cat e that Long was i nvol ved i n deal i ng dr ugs by her
quest i ons, t he cour t hel d t hat t he quest i ons wer e not hear say,
despi t e t he pot ent i al t hat t hey cont ai ned i mpl i ed asser t i ons.
Whet her a pi ece of evi dence sat i sf i es t he st at ement
r equi r ement hi nges on whether t he evi dence i s asser t i ve. Thi s
det er mi nat i on depends on bot h t he decl ar ant s i nt ent t o
communi cat e and on t he gr ammat i cal st r uct ure of t he
st atement . l xvi i i Both ver bal st atement s and nonver bal act i ons may
const i t ut e asser t i ons. l xi x
2. Decl arant and Out of Cour t St atementComponent s
The second and t hi r d component s of hear sayr equi r i ng a
decl arant and an out of cour t st atement are si mpl e i n t he
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
11/48
10cont ext of Facebook l i kes. [ T] he per son who made the
st at ement i s t he decl ar ant .
l xxi i
l xx Thi s means t hat f or evi dence t o
const i t ute hear say a human bei ng must make the st at ement . l xxi The
r equi r ement t hat t he st atement be made out si de of t he cour t r oom
means t he st atement i s not made by a person whi l e t est i f yi ng i n
t he cur r ent pr oceedi ng.
3. Tr uth of t he Mat t er Asser t ed ComponentThe l ast r equi r ement f or evi dence t o qual i f y as hear say i s
t hat l awyer s must of f er st at ement s f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er
asser t ed. l xxi i i
l xxi v
l xxvi
l xxvi i
I f t he si gni f i cance of an of f er ed st at ement l i es
sol el y i n t he f act t hat i t was made, no i ssue i s r ai sed as t o
t he t r ut h of anyt hi ng assert ed. However , a st atement of f ered
f or t he subst ance of i t s cont ent r at her t han t he mer e f act t hat
t he speaker made i t i s of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er
asser t ed. l xxvThe t r uth of t he mat t er asser t ed need not be di r ect
evi dence of t he pr oposi t i on t o ul t i mat el y be shown. I nst ead,
i f t he mat t er asser t ed i n t he st at ement , i f t r ue, [ pr ovi des]
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of t he mat t er t o be pr oved[ , ] t he
st at ement const i t ut es hearsay.
Some st atement s exhi bi t a dual pur poseone t hat goes t o t he
t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed and one t hat suppor t s anot her
pur pose. l xxvi i i I n t hese si t uat i ons, t he ci r cumst ances surr oundi ng
t he st ated pur pose f or t he st at ement ar e r el evant i n det er mi ni ng
whether t he cour t must excl ude the st atement on hear say gr ounds.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
12/48
11State v. Richcreek addr essed t he i ssue of dual use. l xxi x
l xxxi
I n
Richcreek, t he cour t hel d t hat , [ d] espi t e a pr of essed nonhear say
use, i f t he st at ement s cont ent coul d al so cut t owar d pr oof of
gui l t , t he pot ent i al f or abuse i s gr eat . l xxx Ther ef or e, [ w] hen
t he st atement s connect t he accused wi t h t he cr i me charged, t hey
shoul d gener al l y be excl uded.
United States v. Reynolds al so addr essed a st atement open
t o mul t i pl e i nt er pr et at i ons. l xxxi i
l xxxi i i
l xxxi v
l xxxv
The cour t i n Reynolds hel d t hat
t he st atement was not of f ered t o pr ove i t s expr ess meani ng.
However , t he par t y was of f er i ng t he st at ement f or t he t r ut h of
i t s i mpl i cat i on t hat t he def endant was gui l t y. The cour t
st at ed t hat i t i s wel l set t l ed t hat evi dence i s
i nadmi ssi bl e hear say i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue depends on t he t r ut h
of any asser t i on of f act i t cont ai ns . . . . Ther ef or e, when
a st at ement bear s t he pot ent i al f or mul t i pl e uses i n cour t , one
of whi ch depends on t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed, cour t s
must consi der t he st atement hear say.
To det er mi ne whet her a pi ece of evi dence i s hear say, t he
Feder al Rul es of Evi dence di ct at e t hat al l of t he above
r equi r ement s must be met . l xxxvi
l xxxvi i
Once t he cour t f i nds t hat t he
evi dence meet s t he f our r equi r ement s, t he evi dence i s
hear say. The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence provi de t hat cour t s
must excl ude hear say f r om admi ssi on i nt o evi dence unl ess
ot her wi se al l owed by f eder al st at ut e, a di f f er ent por t i on of t he
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
13/48
12r ul es, or Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent . l xxxvi i i
l xxxi x
The Feder al Rul es of
Evi dence al l ow f or t he admi ss i on of hear say that meet s a hear say
except i on or exempt i on. Cour t s may st i l l admi t evi dence t hat
meet s t he qual i f i cat i ons out l i ned above and t her ef or e meet s a
hear say exempt i on. The adopt i ve admi ss i ons exempt i on i s one
exampl e.
C. The Hearsay Exemption for Adoptive AdmissionsThe adopt i ve admi ssi ons exempt i on t o hear say al l ows cour t s
t o admi t some ot herwi se excl udabl e st atement s i nt o evi dence as
nonhear say st atement s. The hear say exempt i on f or adopt i ve
admi ssi ons s t at es, A st at ement t hat meet s t he f ol l owi ng
condi t i ons i s not hear say: . . . ( 2) An Opposi ng Par t y s
St at ement . The st at ement i s of f er ed agai nst and opposi ng part y
and: . . . ( b) i s one t he par t y mani f est ed t hat i t adopt ed or
bel i eved t o be t r ue. xc
The st at ement i n t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons exempt i on has
t he same def i ni t i on as s t at ement f or pur poses of hear say. xci I n
cont r ast , t he ter m admi ssi on i n t hi s cont ext means somet hi ng
ot her t han what peopl e commonl y underst and i t t o mean.
St atement s admi t t ed i nt o evi dence under t hi s exempt i on need not
admi t anythi ng such as a per son s gui l t or i nvol vement i n a
cr i me. xci i Rat her , i f a st atement can be used agai nst a par t y at
t r i al f or exampl e a f al se al i bi by the def endant t hat t he
government want s t o use t o show t he def endant s consci ousness of
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
14/48
13gui l t [ i t ] i s admi ssi bl e i nt o evi dence despi t e t he f act t hat i t
i s hear say. xci i i The adopt i ve admi ssi ons exempt i on r equi r es
si mpl y that t he par t y agai nst whom t he st atement i s bei ng
of f er ed asser t ed t he st at ement . xci v
Whi l e cour t s have yet t o consi der whet her a l i ke i s an
adopt i ve admi ssi on, cases consi der i ng nonver bal conduct and
f or war di ng of el ect r oni c mai l ( e- mai l ) messages as adopt i ve
admi ss i ons provi de an anal ogous background.
1. Nonver bal Conduct as Adopt i ve Admi ss i onsI n United States v. Joshi, t he El event h Ci r cui t Cour t of
Appeal s r evi ewed t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on t o admi t a head
nod i n response t o a st at ement made by anot her per son as an
adopt i ve admi ss i on.
xcvi i
xcvi i i
xcv I n r evi ewi ng t he r ul i ng, t he cour t hel d
t hat evi dence must meet t wo cr i t er i a f or cour t s t o admi t a
st at ement as an adopt i ve admi ssi on: Fi r st , t he st at ement must
be such t hat an i nnocent def endant woul d nor mal l y be i nduced t o
r espond, and [ s] econd, t her e must be suf f i ci ent f oundat i onal
f act s f r om whi ch t he j ur y coul d i nf er t hat t he def endant hear d,
under st ood, and acqui esced i n t he st at ement . xcvi The f i r st of
t hese cr i t er i a i s r el evant i n cases of adopt i on by si l ence.
Because J oshi acted by noddi ng hi s head r ather t han r emai ni ng
s i l ent , t he Joshi cour t easi l y f ound t hat t hi s f i r st cr i t er i a
had been met .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
15/48
14I n addr essi ng t he second cr i t er i a, t he cour t hel d t hat
evi dence meet s t hi s r equi r ement when a j ur y coul d reasonably
find t hat t he def endant compr ehended and acqui esced i n t he
st at ement . xci x An undercover agent had i nt r oduced J oshi as t he
agent s part ner i n t he Newark and t he Mi ami hashi sh i mport at i on
pl ans. c J oshi nodded hi s head i n r esponse t o t hi s
i nt r oduct i on. ci The cour t hel d t hat t he nod i t sel f coul d suppor t
an i nf erence t hat J oshi under st ood t he st atement s t o whi ch he
was r espondi ng, and t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence f or a
r easonabl e j ur y t o concl ude J oshi s nod pr ovi ded an
acknowl edgment of t he st at ement . ci i Ther ef or e, t he cour t hel d
t hat t he head nod f ul f i l l ed t he r equi r ement s f or an adopt i ve
admi ss i on. c i i i
United States v. Price al so addressed whet her a head nod
sat i sf i ed t he r equi r ement s of t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons
exempt i on. ci v I n Price, t he def endant nodded hi s head r epeat edl y
when anot her per son, Hi l l , descr i bed bank r obber i es he had
commi t t ed wi t h t he def endant . cv The def endant s head nod
suggest [ ed] t hat he had hel ped Hi l l commi t t hese cr i mes. cvi The
cour t r evi ewed t he admi ss i on of t he head nod as an adopt i ve
admi ssi on f or pl ai n er r or . cvi i Though peopl e may i nt erpr et t he
def endant s head- noddi ng i n var i ous ways, i ncl udi ng t hat he was
i mpr essed by Hi l l s cri mi nal expl oi t s, t he cour t hel d t hat
because Hi l l s st at ement was made i n [ t he def endant s] pr esence
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
16/48
15and because [ t he def endant ] appear ed t o adopt i t as hi s own
si gni f yi ng t hat he, t oo, par t i ci pat ed i n t hese cr i mest he
st at ement was admi ssi bl e under Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E) . cvi i i
2. E- Mai l For war di ng as Adopt i ve Admi ssi onsI n United States v. Safavian, t he cour t appl i ed t he
adopt i ve admi ssi ons doct r i ne t o f or war ded e- mai l s. ci x I n
Safavian, t he cour t pr ovi ded l i t t l e i nf or mat i on on t he pr ocess
i t used t o determi ne whether an e- mai l message const i t ut ed an
adopt i ve admi ss i on by Saf avi an. cx The cour t hel d si mpl y that
[ t ] he cont ext and cont ent of cer t ai n e- mai l s demonst r at e
cl ear l y t hat Mr . Saf avi an mani f est ed an adopt i on or bel i ef i n
t he t r ut h of t he st at ement s of ot her peopl e as he f or war ded
t hei r e- mai l s, whi l e cer t ai n ot her e- mai l s di d not have t he
r equi si t e cont ext . cxi Wi t hout expl ai ni ng what cont ext was
suf f i ci ent f or t hi s showi ng, t he cour t admi t t ed some e- mai l s as
adopt i ve admi ssi ons and excl uded ot her s. Safavian i l l ust r at es
t hat t he si mpl e act of f orwardi ng an e- mai l message does not
necessar i l y const i t ut e an adopt i ve admi ssi on wi t hout cont ext
i ndi cat i ng an adopt i on of t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned wi t hi n.
I n Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen Intern., LLC., t he Ni nt h
Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s addr essed t he admi ssi bi l i t y of an e-
mai l message as an adopt i ve admi ssi on. cxi i I n Sea-Land, one Sea-
Land empl oyee f or war ded a memo to anot her Sea- Land empl oyee,
pr ef aci ng t he f or war ded message wi t h Yi kes, Pl s not e t he r ai l
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
17/48
16scr ewed us up. . . . cxi i i The cour t hel d t hat t hi s const i t ut ed an
i ncor por at i on and adopt i on of t he or i gi nal e- mai l r i si ng t o t he
l evel of mani f est [ i ng] an adopt i on or bel i ef i n [ t he] t r ut h
of t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he or i gi nal e- mai l . cxi v
These cases i l l ust r at e t hat t he cont ext sur r oundi ng one s
si l ence or st at ement i s key t o det er mi ni ng whet her t he si l ence
or st at ement i s an adopt i ve admi ssi on. Theref or e, t o det er mi ne
whet her a speci f i c l i ke const i t ut es hear say or an adopt i ve
admi ssi on, cour t s must t ake t he cont ext of t he l i ke i nt o
account . Keepi ng t he necessi t y of cont ext i n mi nd, cour t s must
anal yze l i kes under t he exi st i ng Feder al Rul es.
I I I . ANALYZI NG A LI KE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULESI n or der t o r equi r e qual i f i cat i on under a hear say
exempt i on, evi dence must f i r st qual i f y as hear say. Subpar t A
est abl i shes t hat a l i ke const i t ut es hear say. Subpar t B ar gues
t hat a l i ke qual i f i es f or t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons exempt i on t o
t he hear say rul e.
A. Likes Constitute HearsayA l i ke const i t ut es hear say i n t he same ci r cumst ances as
any ot her pi ece of evi dence: when t he evi dence meet s condi t i ons
of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. Ther ef or e, a l i ke must
cont ai n f our component s i n or der t o qual i f y as hear say: ( 1) t he
evi dence must be a st atement , ( 2) made by a decl arant , ( 3) made
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
18/48
17out si de of t he cour t r oom, and ( 4) of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he
mat t er asser t ed. cxv
1. Stat ementThe r equi r ement t hat a l i ke qual i f y as a st at ement
r epr esent s t he most compl i cat ed hear say qual i f i cat i on anal ysi s.
A st at ement i s def i ned as a per son s or al asser t i on, wr i t t en
asser t i on, or nonver bal conduct , i f t he per son i nt ended i t as an
asser t i on.
cxvi i
cxvi i i
cxvi The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence do not def i ne the
t er m asser t i on . However , i f t he conduct i s asser t i ve i n
natur e, t hat i s, meant t o be communi cat i vel i ke t he noddi ng or
shaki ng of one s head i n response t o a quest i oni t i s t r eat ed as
a st at ement , and t he hear say r ul e appl i es. The key quest i on
i n det ermi ni ng whet her nonver bal conduct const i t ut es a st at ement
i s whet her t he act or i ntended t o communi cat e somet hi ng. When an
actor does not exhi bi t an i nt ent i on t o communi cate somethi ng
t hr ough hi s or her nonver bal conduct , t he conduct i s not a
st atement .
Whi l e a person may have var i ous subj ect i ve pur poses f or
cl i cki ng l i ke , al l of t he pot ent i al pur poses f or cl i cki ng
l i ke shar e a common t hr ead: l i ki ng somet hi ng si gnal s a
posi t i ve r eact i on t o t he cont ent or a show of suppor t . cxi x
Facebook adver t i ses a l i ke as an easy way t o l et someone know
t hat you enj oy somet hi ng, wi t hout l eavi ng a [ ver bal ] comment . cxx
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
19/48
18The i nt ent i on t o communi cat e t hat a per son act ual l y l i kes
somet hi ng l i es embedded i n t he pur pose of t he l i ke.
Facebook s adver t i sement of a l i ke as a means of
communi cat i ng one s posi t i ve r eact i on to post ed cont ent was
r ei nf or ced by the posi t i on Facebook t ook i n Bland v. Roberts.
cxxi i
cxxi i i
cxxi
Facebook has consi st ent l y expl ai ned a l i ke as a means of
communi cat i on. Ther ef or e, based on the pur pose of t he l i ke
t ool as asser t ed by Facebook and as commonl y under st ood by
Facebook user s, a Facebook user cl i cks t he l i ke when he or
she i nt ends t o communi cat e somethi ng. The f act t hat t he cr eat ors
of Facebook i nt end l i kes f or use as a communi cat i ve t ool
suppor t s t he not i on t hat l i kes const i t ut e st at ement s f or
pur poses of hear say.
Legal schol ar s and wr i t er s have support ed Facebook s
posi t i on on t he communi cat i ve nat ur e of a l i ke, pr ovi di ng
exampl es of anal ogous speech t hat woul d const i t ut e a
st atement . cxxi v
cxxvi
I t s har d t o i magi ne t he sl ogan I Li ke I ke
woul d not have t aken on a st r ong dose of Facebook meani ng wi t h
suppor t er s l i ki ng hi m onl i ne wer e Dwi ght Ei senhower t o r un f or
of f i ce i n 2012. cxxv One l aw pr of essor not ed t hat [ p] r essi ng
l i ke on Facebook i s t he cyber equi val ent of maki ng a gest ur e at
someone. We know t hat gi vi ng someone the f i nger or cl appi ng f or
someone ar e f orms of pr otected expr essi on. Though t hese
exampl es were di scussed i n t he cont ext of t he Bland hol di ng t hat
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
20/48
19 l i kes do not const i t ut e speech f or pur poses of Fi r st Amendment
pr ot ect i on, t he anal ogi es al so r i ng t r ue i n t he cont ext of
anal yzi ng asser t i ve conduct f or hear say pur poses.
Though a cour t may i ni t i al l y det er mi ne a l i ke t o be
hear say, t he par t y ar gui ng t hat a l i ke escapes qual i f i cat i on
as hear say may of f er evi dence t hat t he l i ke i n a speci f i c case
was not communi cat i ve because t he use of l i ke was an acci dent
or not meant t o communi cat e anyt hi ng. cxxvi i However , absent
evi dence showi ng t hat t he l i ke i n a par t i cul ar case was not
i nt ended as a communi cat i on, l i kes must be consi der ed
st at ement s f or pur poses of hearsay because bot h the common
char act er i st i cs of l i kes and t he common under st andi ng of
l i kes suppor t t he f i ndi ng t hat l i kes ar e i nt ended as t ool s
f or communi cat i on.
2. Decl ar ant and Made Out of Cour t Component sThe decl ar ant r equi r ement f ocuses on whet her a human bei ng
generates t he st atement . cxxvi i i
cxxi x
Whi l e a l i ke may be cl i cked by
mi st ake, a per son usi ng a machi nenot t he machi ne i t sel f st i l l
cl i cks t he l i ke but t on. Fur t her mor e, whet her a per son cl i cks
l i ke by mi st ake r ai ses an aut hent i cat i on i ssue r at her t han an
i ssue as par t of t he hear say anal ysi s.
Li kes r epr esent an act i on t hat occur s on t he I nt er net
t hr ough t he use of Facebook. Wi t nesses t ypi cal l y cannot access
t he I nt er net whi l e t hey ar e t est i f yi ng. Ther ef or e, t hi s Not e
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
21/48
20assumes t hat cl i cki ng l i ke t akes pl ace out si de of t he
court r oom. cxxx
3. Tr uth of t he Mat t er Asser t edThe r equi r ement t hat t he l i ke be of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of
t he mat t er asser t ed depends on t he pur port ed use of t he evi dence
pr ovi ded by t he pr oponent of t he l i ke.
A l i ke may or may not be of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he
mat t er asser t ed based on t he gr ammat i cal st r uct ur e of t he
pr oposi t i on l i ked. For exampl e, i f J ane l i kes a f r i end s
post t hat says I s i t j ust me or i s t he new J ames Bond movi e t he
best one yet ? the i nqui r y di f f er s f r om t hat i nqui r y i f J ane
l i kes a f r i end s post sayi ng, The new J ames Bond movi e i s t he
best one yet . The f or mer phr asi ng i s a quest i on, whi l e t he
l at t er i s a decl ar at i ve. Though bot h l i kes may convey the same
messaget hat J ane l i kes t he new J ames Bond movi et he asser t i on
t hat J ane l i kes t he new J ames Bond movi e whi ch st ems f r omt he
quest i on i s an i mpl i ed assert i on, cxxxi
cxxxi i
whi l e t he asser t i on t hat
J ane l i kes t he movi e f r om t he decl ar at i ve st at ement i s not an
i mpl i ed asser t i on.
Whet her a par t y of f er s a st at ement f or t he t r ut h of t he
mat t er asser t ed al so hi nges on t he pur pose f or whi ch t he
pr oponent of t he evi dence i s of f er i ng t he st at ement . For
exampl e, suppose aut hor i t i es accuse J ane of i nvol vement i n
bul l yi ng Har r y, a f el l ow st udent at her hi gh school . One pi ece
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
22/48
21of evi dence of f er ed i n t he case i s t hat J ane l i ked a Facebook
post sayi ng, Go f i gur e, Har r y r ai sed hi s hand i n cl ass agai n.
What a suck- up. Dependi ng on t he pur por t ed pur pose of t he
st at ement , J ane s l i ke may or may not be of f er ed f or t he t r ut h
of t he mat t er asser t ed. I f t he pr oponent of t he evi dence of f er s
J ane s l i ke t o show t hat she agr eed t hat Har r y i s a suck- up,
t hen t he st at ement i s bei ng of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er
asser t ed. However , i f t he pr oponent of f er s t he st at ement t o show
t hat J ane had knowl edge t hat ot her st udent s wer e bul l yi ng Har r y,
or t hat J ane knew who Harr y was, t he st atement i s not bei ng
of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed, and t her ef or e not
hear say. cxxxi i i
I n shor t , no over ar chi ng answer as t o whet her a l i ke i s
bei ng of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed exi st s. Some
l i kes may be phr ased as quest i ons or of f er ed as ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence of knowl edge, meani ng t hey are not of f ered f or t he
t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed and t her ef or e not excl udabl e under
t he hear say r ul e. cxxxi v However , t hose l i kes t hat ar e phr ased i n
t he decl ar at i ve and of f er ed by the sponsor i ng par t y to show
suppor t f or t he asser t i on t hat i s cont ai ned wi t hi n ar e of f er ed
f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed and cour t s must t r eat t hese
l i kes as hear say. Fur t her mor e, cour t s must consi der st at ement s
exhi bi t i ng a dual use, one of whi ch woul d const i t ut e use f or t he
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
23/48
22t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed and one t hat woul d not , as hearsay,
even when thei r pr of f er ed use i s f or nonhear say pur poses. cxxxv
B. Likes Qualify as Adoptive AdmissionsI n many ci r cumst ances, a l i ke wi l l const i t ut e
hear say. cxxxvi When a l i ke qual i f i es as hear say, cour t s may
st i l l admi t t he l i ke i nt o evi dence when i t qual i f i es f or a
hear say exempt i on. Li kes wi l l of t en qual i f y f or t he adopt i ve
admi ss i ons exempt i on.
Cour t s shoul d anal yze l i kes under t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons
st andar d f or nonver bal conduct . A l i ke f ai l s t o f i t t he
anal ysi s f or adopt i ve admi ssi on by si l ence because l i kes
r epr esent a di st i nct act i on. At t hi s poi nt , i t i s hel pf ul t o
r et ur n t o t he use of hypot het i cal Facebook user J ane. I n or der
t o qual i f y f or t he adopt i ve admi ssi on exempt i on, t he cont ext
pr ovi ng t hat J ane mani f est ed a bel i ef i n t he cont ent she l i ked
must i ndi cat e t hat J ane hear d, under st ood, and acqui esced i n
t he cont ent . cxxxvi i
Evi dence qual i f i es as an adopt i ve admi ssi on when i t meet s
t he suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng st andar d of pr oof . cxxxvi i i
Looki ng pr i mar i l y at t he cont ext sur r oundi ng a par t i cul ar act of
adopt i on makes t he i nqui r y i nt o whet her evi dence qual i f i es f or
t he adopt i ve admi ssi on exempt i on par t i cul ar l y f act - i nt ensi ve.
However , whi l e some cont ext ual f act s wi l l change wi t h each
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
24/48
23 l i ke, l i kes have cer t ai n cont ext i n ever y case t hat
gener al l y wi l l al l ow t hem t o qual i f y as adopt i ve admi ssi ons.
The ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng a st at ement provi de cr i t i cal
i nf ormat i on i n determi ni ng whether a person mani f est ed an
adopt i on or bel i ef i n a st at ement . cxxxi x
cxl i i
cxl i i i
cxl i v
The suf f i ci ent t o
suppor t a f i ndi ng t est means t hat t her e may be f act s t hat do
not suppor t evi dence qual i f yi ng as an adopt i ve admi ssi on. Even
i f al l f act s ot her t han t hose whi ch appl y to ever y l i ke poi nt
agai nst t he l i ke bei ng an adopt i ve admi ss i on, t he f act s common
t o al l l i kes pr ovi de a suf f i ci ent basi s t o suppor t a f i ndi ng
t hat a par t i cul ar l i ke i s an adopt i ve admi ssi on. The f act s
common t o al l of J ane s l i kes and al l of t he l i kes by any
other Facebook user are as f ol l ows: ( 1) a person who i s l ogged
i nt o J ane s Facebook cl i cks l i ke ; ( 2) t he cont ent t hat i s
l i ked and t he phr ase J ane l i kes t hi s wi l l appear on J ane s
newsf eed; cxl ( 3) J ane s Facebook possesses a number of
i dent i f yi ng char acter i st i cs, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o, her
name, cxl i a photo of her , her pl ace of empl oyment and t he
school s J ane has at t ended, J ane s i nter est s, a l i st of
J ane s f r i ends, and i ndi cat i ons of pl aces J ane has vi si t ed on
a map. cxl v
The above f act s exi st every t i me a person cl i cks l i ke.
Based on t hese f act s common t o ever y l i ke, every Facebook
l i ke wi l l achi eve t he st andar d r equi r ed t o det er mi ne t hat such
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
25/48
24evi dence const i t ut es an adopt i ve admi ssi on. Of cour se, t hi s
st andar d al l ows f or t he per son obj ect i ng t o t he admi ssi on of t he
evi dence as an adopt i ve admi ssi on t o of f er count er - evi dence i n
suppor t of hi s or her cont ent i on t hat t he l i ke does not
qual i f y f or an adopt i ve admi ssi on. cxl vi However , cour t s shoul d
gener al l y admi t l i kes under a suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a
f i ndi ng st andar d by vi r t ue of t he char act er i st i cs shar ed by
every l i ke.
I n shor t , under t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, many, t hough
not al l , l i kes wi l l meet t he def i ni t i on of hear say. However ,
l i kes t hat do meet t he def i ni t i on of hear say and woul d
ot her wi se const i t ut e excl udabl e hear say nonet hel ess of t en shoul d
be admi ss i bl e pur suant t o t he adopt i ve admi ss i ons exempt i on t o
t he hear say rul e.
I V. CONCLUSI ONSoci al medi a has become deepl y engr ai ned i n our day- t o- day
l i ves. Facebook l ogos and adver t i sement s appear on many websi t es
other t han Facebook, and Facebook encour ages users t o connect
wi t h ot her websi t es t hr ough t hei r Facebook. Facebook i s not t he
onl y i mpor t ant soci al medi a websi t e r egul ar l y i n use. Websi t es
l i ke Twi t t er and Li nkedI n al so mai nt ai n i mpor t ance i n t he way
peopl e communi cat e, and ot her soci al medi a websi t es wi l l l i kel y
be created i n t he f ut ur e. Many soci al medi a websi t es have
nonver bal cont ent shar i ng si mi l ar t o a Facebook l i ke , cxl vi i and
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
26/48
25cour t s must pr epar e t o addr ess t he i nt r oduct i on of t hi s
nonver bal i nt er net cont ent i nt o evi dence at t r i al .
Cour t s pr evi ousl y have consi der ed I nt er net cont ent under
t he cur r ent Feder al Rul es of Evi dence. cxl vi i i
cxl i x
Whi l e cour t s may
i ni t i al l y bal k at par t i es usi ng I nt er net evi dence such as a
Facebook l i ke, l i kes and ot her nonver bal I nt er net cont ent
undoubt edl y can and wi l l need to be addr essed under t he cur r ent
f r amework of Federal Rul es of Evi dence. Cour t s must embr ace or
f r i end t he oncomi ng i ncr ease i n t he use of I nt er net
evi dencever bal and nonverbal and appl y t he Federal Rul es of
Evi dence to I nt ernet cont ent t he way t hey woul d any ot her ver bal
or nonver bal cont ent .
Wi t h t he rapi d gr owt h and change of t he I nt er net and soci al
medi a t ool s, pr edi ct i ng what new t echnol ogy i s comi ng around t he
bend i s di f f i cul t . However , nonver bal I nt er net communi cat i ons
cl ear l y ar e cover ed by the cur r ent Feder al Rul es of Evi dence f or
hear say.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
27/48
1
J . D. Candi dat e, The Uni ver si t y of I owa Col l ege of Law, 2014;B. A. , The Uni ver si t y of I owa, 2011.i
St . Cl ai r v. J ohnny s Oyst er & Shr i mp, I nc. , 76 F. Supp. 2d
773, 775 ( S. D. Texas 1999) ( hol di ng t hat any evi dence pr ocur ed
of f t he I nt er net i s adequat e f or al most not hi ng, even under t he
most l i ber al i nt er pr et at i on of t he hear say except i on r ul es. ) .
i i See, e.g., Kat hr i ne Mi not t i , Not e, The Advent of Digital
Diaries: Implication of Social Networking Web Sites for the
Legal Profession, 60 S. C. L. REV. 1057 ( 2009) ( her ei naf t er Digital
Diaries) ; Kat hl een El l i ot t Vi nson, Not e, The Blurred Boundaries
of Social Networking in the Legal Field: Just Face It, 41 U.
MEM. L. REV. 355 ( 2010) ( her ei naf t er Blurred Boundaries) ; J essi ca
C. Col l i er , Informal Internet Research: Need, Reliability, and
Admissibility, COLORADO LAWYER ( 2009) .
i i i Mi not t i , Digital Diaries, 60 S. C. L. REV. 1057
( 2009) ( advocat i ng a change t o t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l
Procedur e to accommodate el ect r oni c evi dence) ; Vi nson, Blurred
Boundaries, 41 U. MEM. L. REV. 355 ( 2010) ( cal l i ng f or wr i t t en
gui del i nes speci f i cal l y addr essi ng t he use of soci al medi a i n
t he l egal pr of essi on) ; Bl ack v. Texas, 358 S. W. 3d 823, 831 ( Tex.
Ct . App. 2012) ( cal l i ng f or moder ni zat i on of t he r ul es of
evi dence) .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
28/48
2
i v Facebook i s a websi t e where user s can cr eat e a personal page
or a page f or t hei r busi ness. I t i s a means of communi cat i ng
wi t h ot her peopl e and busi nesses by shar i ng phot os, vi deos,
event s, and ot her cont ent t hat a user post s t o t hei r page.
Facebook Hel p Cent er , Timeline, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 467610326601639/ ( l ast vi si t ed Feb.
6, 2013) .
v See Bl and v. Rober t s, 857 F. Supp 2d 599 ( E. D. Va.
2012) ( di scussi ng the Fi r st Amendment i mpl i cat i ons of a Facebook
l i ke ) ; Infra Par t B. 2. a.
vi Key Facts, FACEBOOK NEWSROOM,
ht t p: / / newsr oom. f b. com/ cont ent / def aul t . aspx?NewsAr eaI d=22 ( l ast
vi si t ed J anuar y 7, 2013) .
vi i Id.
vi i i Id.
i x J ef f r ey F. Raypor t , What is Facebook, Really?, HARVARD BUSI NESS
REVI EWBLOG NETWORK,
ht t p: / / bl ogs. hbr . or g/ cs/ 2011/ 02/ what _i s_Facebook_i s_becomi ng. ht
ml ( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) .
x
Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
29/48
3
xi Facebook Hel p Cent er , What is News Feed?, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / www. Facebook. com/ hel p/ ?f aq=210346402339221 ( l ast vi si t ed
Feb. 6, 2013) .xi i Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) .
xi i i Not e t hat user s have cont r ol over t hei r pr i vacy set t i ngs i n
order t o l i mi t who may vi ew t he cont ent on t hei r Facebook page,
i ncl udi ng t hi ngs t hey l i ke. Facebook Hel p Cent er , Privacy,
FACEBOOK, ht t p: / / www. Facebook. com/ hel p/ pr i vacy ( l ast vi si t ed Sept .
27, 2012) .
xi v Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) .
xv Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) .
xvi She may al so per f or m t he exact same act i on ( cl i cki ng l i ke )
i n r esponse t o her f r i end Har r y s post st at i ng I m happy t o
have got t en a j ob t oday t o show suppor t f or Har r y s success .
Ther ef or e, di f f er ent t ypes of cont ent may prompt J ane t o l i ke
t he post s. J ane s i nt ent i on i n cl i cki ng l i ke wi l l make a
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
30/48
4
di f f er ence i n t he hear say and adopt i ve admi ssi ons anal ysi s. See
supra Par t I I . B. 3. ; I I . B. 1. ; I I I . A. 3.
xvi i
The i ssue of a mi st aken or acci dent al cl i ck r esul t i ng i n a
l i ke i s an aut hent i cat i on i ssue. Whi l e aut hent i cat i on i s
r el evant t o hear say, i t i s beyond t he scope of t hi s Not e. Thi s
Not e onl y addr esses admi ssi bi l i t y of pr evi ousl y aut hent i cat ed
l i kes under t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons r ul e. For a mor e i n dept h
di scussi on of aut hent i cat i on st andar ds and i ssues r el at ed t o
hear say and Facebook l i kes, see infra note 129.
xvi i i See generally FED. R. EVI D. ( pr ovi di ng i nst r uct i ons f or what
evi dence i s i nadmi ssi bl e at t r i al f or var i ous pur poses) .
xi x FED. R. EVI D. 802.
xx Federal Rul es of Evi dence 801, 802, 803, 804, and 807 govern
t he use of hear say. The Feder al Rul es def i ne hear say as a
st at ement t hat : 1) t he decl ar ant does not make whi l e t est i f yi ng
at t he cur r ent t r i al or hear i ng and; 2) a par t y of f er s i n
evi dence to pr ove t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed i n t he
st at ement . FED. R. EVI D. 801( c) .
xxi FED. R. EVI D. 801( a) .
xxi i
FED. R. EVI D. 801, advi sory commi t t ee s not e.xxi i i Uni t ed St at es v. Zenni , 492 F. Supp 464, 468 ( E. D. Ky.
1980) .
xxi v Id.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
31/48
5
xxv Id. at 467.
xxvi Id.
xxvi i
Id. at 466 ( ci t i ng Wr i ght v. Tat ham, 7 Adol ph. & E. 313,
386, 112 Eng. Rep. 488 (Exch. Ch. 1837) ) .
xxvi i i Id.
xxi x Id. at 467.
xxx Id. at 478.
xxxi Id. ( ci t i ng Mor gan, Hearsay Dangers and the Application of
the Hearsay Concept, 62 HARV. L. REV. 177, 214, 217 (1948) ) .
xxxi i For a var i et y of cases addr essi ng nonver bal conduct as
hear say, see, e.g., Cl abon v. Texas, 111 S. W. 3d 805, 808 ( Tex.
Ct . App. 2003) ( hol di ng t hat a woman s st abbi ng mot i ons
i ndi cat i ng knowl edge about a mur der was hear say under t he Texas
Rul es of Evi dence) ; Col var d v. Kent ucky, 309 S. W. 3d 239, 24748
( Ky. 2010) ( hol di ng t hat poi nt i ng i n r esponse t o a quest i on i s
hear say under t he Kent ucky hear say r ul es) ; Uni t ed St at es v.
Car o, 569 F. 2d 411, 416 n. 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 1978) ( hol di ng t hat a
per son s poi nt i ng out a vehi cl e i n r esponse t o pol i ce
i nvest i gat i on was asser t i ve conduct and t her ef or e i nadmi ssi bl e
hear say) .xxxi i i Bl and v. Rober t s, 857 F. Supp 2d 599 ( E. D. Va. 2012) .
xxxi v Id. at 601.
xxxv Id.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
32/48
6
xxxvi Id. at 603.
xxxvi i Id.
xxxvi i i
Id.xxxi x Id. at 604.
xl See, e.g., G. Edward Whi t e ET AL. , Is it Legal? Are Facebook
Likes Protected by the First Amendment?, VA. L. NEWS & EVENTS
( Aug. 13, 2012) ,
ht t p: / / www. l aw. vi r gi ni a. edu/ ht ml / news/ 2012_sum/ f acebook_l i ke_cas
e. ht m ( di scussi ng why a l i ke shoul d be pr ot ect ed speech) ;
Chr i s Mat yszczyk, Could you get fired for a Facebook like?,
CNET ( May 6, 2012, 9: 03 AM) , ht t p: / / news. cnet . com/ 8301- 17852_3-
57428717- 71/ coul d- you- get - f i r ed- f or - a- f acebook- l i ke/ ( di scussi ng
pot ent i al r ami f i cat i ons of l i kes on empl oyment ) ; J oanna St er n,
Is a Facebook Like Protected Under the First Amendment?, ABC
NEWS TECHNOLOGY REVIEW(Aug. 9, 2012, 5:21 PM),
ht t p: / / abcnews. go. com/ bl ogs/ t echnol ogy/ 2012/ 08/ i s- a- f acebook-
l i ke- pr ot ect ed- under - t he- f i r st - amendment / ( di scussi ng whet her
l i kes ar e pr ot ect ed under t he Fi r st Amendment ) ; Davi d L.
Hudson J r . , Like is Unliked, Amer i can Bar Associ at i on J our nal
23 ( 2012) .
xl i Chr i s Mat yszczyk, Could you get fired for a Facebook like?,
CNET ( May 6, 2012, 9: 03 AM) , ht t p: / / news. cnet . com/ 8301- 17852_3-
57428717- 71/ coul d- you- get - f i r ed- f or - a- f acebook- l i ke/
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
33/48
7
xl i i Br i ef f or Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on and ACLU of Vi r gi ni a
as Ami cus Cur i ae Suppor t i ng Pl ai nt i f f s- Appel l ant s, Bl and v.
Rober t s, 857 F. Supp. 2d 599 ( E. D. Va. 2012) , at 5, avai l abl e at
ht t p: / / www. acl u. or g/ f i l es/ asset s/ bl and_v. _r ober t s_appeal _-
__ami cus_br i ef _. pdf . xl i i i Id.
xl i v Id. at 6.
xl v Id.
xl vi The r i ght t o f r ee speech i s prot ect ed by the Fi r st Amendment .
U. S. CONST. amend. I . Fr ee speech i s gener al l y pr esumed. [ T] he
Fi r st Amendment bars t he government f r om di ct at i ng what we see
or r ead or speak or hear . However , i t does not embr ace cer t ai n
cat egor i es of speech . . . . Ashcr of t v. Free Speech Coal . , 535
U. S. 234 ( 2002) . The Fi r st Amendment , t her ef or e, gener al l y
appl i es t o al l st at ement s unl ess speech f al l s i nt o an except i on.
However , t hat i s not t he case wi t h t he requi r ement t hat evi dence
must be a st atement f or hearsay pur poses.
xl vi i See generally Br i ef f or Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on and
ACLU of Vi r gi ni a as Ami cus Cur i ae Suppor t i ng Pl ai nt i f f s-
Appel l ant s, Bl and v. Rober t s, 857 F. Supp. 2d 599 ( E. D. Va. 2012) ,
avai l abl e at
ht t p: / / www. acl u. or g/ f i l es/ asset s/ bl and_v. _r ober t s_appeal _-
__ami cus_br i ef _. pdf .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
34/48
8
xl vi i i Facebook s br i ef st at ed t hat [ l i ki ng] a Facebook page i s
ent i t l ed t o f ul l Fi r st Amendment Pr ot ect i on, and t hat t he Bland
cour t r eached a cont r ary concl usi on based on an apparent
mi sunderst andi ng of t he way Facebook wor ks . . . . J oanna
St er n, Is a Facebook Like Protected Under the First
Amendment?, ABC NEWS TECHNOLOGY REVI EW ( Aug. 9, 2012, 5: 21 PM) ,
ht t p: / / abcnews. go. com/ bl ogs/ t echnol ogy/ 2012/ 08/ i s- a- f acebook-
l i ke- pr ot ect ed- under - t he- f i r st - amendment / ( ci t i ng Facebook s
Ami cus Cur i ae br i ef ) .
xl i x J oanna St er n, Is a Facebook Like Protected Under the First
Amendment?, ABC NEWS TECHNOLOGY REVI EW ( Aug. 9, 2012, 5: 21 PM) ,
ht t p: / / abcnews. go. com/ bl ogs/ t echnol ogy/ 2012/ 08/ i s- a- f acebook-
l i ke- pr ot ect ed- under - t he- f i r st - amendment / ( ci t i ng Facebook s
Ami cus Cur i ae br i ef ) .
l Davi d L. Hudson J r . , Like is Unliked, Amer i can Bar
Associ at i on J our nal 23 ( 2012) .
l i Id.
l i i Id. The at t or ney f or t he f i r ed empl oyees has al r eady f i l ed a
not i ce of appeal t o t he 4t h Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s at
Ri chmond. Id.l i i i Uni t ed St at es v. Oguns, 921 F. 2d 442 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) .
l i v Uni t ed St at es v. Long, 905 F. 2d 1572 ( D. C. Ci r . 1990) .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
35/48
9
l v Uni t ed St at es v. Saf avi an, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 4445 ( D. C. D. C.
2006) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Oguns, 921 F. 2d 442, 44849 ( 2d
Ci r . 1990) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.
Long, 905 F. 2d 1572, 157980 ( D. C. Ci r . 1990) ) .
l vi Oguns, 921 F. 2d at 448.
l vi i Id.
l vi i i Id. at 449 ( ci t i ng I nc. Pub. Cor p. v. Manhat t an Magazi ne,
I nc. , 616 F. Supp 370, 388 ( S. D. N. Y. 1985) ) .
l i x Id.
l x Id.
l xi Uni t ed St at es v. Long, 905 F. 2d 1572, 1579- 80 ( D. C. Ci r .
1990) .
l xi i Id. at 1579.
l xi i i Id.
l xi v Id.
l xv Id. at 1580.
l xvi Id. The Cour t i n Long st at ed t hat , of t he goal s of excl udi ng
hear say, one mai n goal of t he hear say r ul e i s t o excl ude
decl ar at i ons when t hei r ver aci t y cannot be t est ed t hr ough cr oss-
exami nat i on. When a decl arant does not i nt end t o communi cat e
anythi ng, however , hi s si ncer i t y i s not i n quest i on and t he need
f or cr oss- exami nat i on i s shar pl y di mi ni shed. Thus, an
uni nt ent i onal message i s presumpt i vel y mor e r el i abl e. Uni t ed
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
36/48
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
37/48
11
F. 3d 498, 506 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( st at i ng t hat a st at ement i s
somethi ng ut t ered by a person, so nothi ng sai d by a machi ne . .
. i s hear say) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , and Uni t ed
St at es v. Washi ngt on, 498 F. 3d 225, 231 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) ( hol di ng
t hat onl y aperson may be a decl arant and make a st at ement ) ,
with Bl ack v. Texas, 358 S. W. 3d 823, 831 ( Tex. Ct . App.
2012) ( hol di ng that t ext messages, t hough el ect r oni c, wer e
pr oduced by human t hought and act i on, maki ng t hem hear say) .
l xxi i FED. R. EVI D. 801( c) ( 2) .
l xxi i i FED. R. EVI D. 801.
l xxi v FED. R. EVI D. 801( c) , advi sor y commi t t ee s not e.
l xxv Id.
l xxvi Uni t ed St at es v. Reynol ds, 715 F. 2d 99, 103 ( 3d Ci r . 1983) .
l xxvi i Id.
l xxvi i i For exampl e, a part y may of f er a st atement by a wi t ness
t hat t he wi t ness s f r i end t ol d hi m she had been assaul t ed f or
t he t r ut h t hat t he f r i end was i n f act assaul t ed or t o show what
t he f r i end di d af t er t he assaul t . See St at e v. Ri chcr eek, 964
N. E. 2d 442, 51112 ( Ohi o Ct . App. 2011) ( di scussi ng dual use) .
l xxi x
St at e v. Ri chcr eek, 964 N. E. 2d 442, 516 ( Ohi o Ct . App.
2011) .
l xxx Id.
l xxxi Id.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
38/48
12
l xxxi i Uni t ed St at es v. Reynol ds, 715 F. 2d 99, 103 ( 3d Ci r . 1983) .
l xxxi i i Id. at 104.
l xxxi v
Id.l xxxv Id. at 101.
l xxxvi FED. R. EVI D. 801( c) ; supra not e 20 and accompanyi ng t ext .
l xxxvi i FED. R. EVI D. 801; supra not e 20 and accompanyi ng t ext .
l xxxvi i i FED. R. EVI D. 802.
l xxxi x An exempt i on means t hat a st atement i s consi dered not
hear say. FED. R. EVI D. 801( d) . Exempt i ons cont ai ned i n 801( d)
i ncl ude [ s] ever al t ypes of st at ement s whi ch woul d ot her wi se
l i t er al l y f al l wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on [ but ] ar e expr essl y
excl uded f r om i t [ . ] FED. R. EVI D. 801( d) , advi sor y commi t t ee s
not e. I n cont r ast , an except i on means t hat t he st at ement i s
consi dered hear say but i s al l owed i nt o evi dence based on ot her
r easoni ng t hat over comes t he r at i onal e f or excl udi ng hear say
evi dence. See generally, FED. R. EVI D. 803; FED. R. EVI D. 804; FED.
R. EVI D. 807. However , t he di f f erences between an except i on t o
hear say and an exempt i on f r om hear say ar e not r el evant t o t hi s
Not e. Thi s di f f er ence i s not r el evant because t hi s Not e onl y
exami nes one exempt i on t o the hear say rul e. Theref ore,
di f f erent i at i ng between whi ch except i ons may appl y and whi ch
exempt i ons may appl y i s beyond t he scope of t hi s Note. However ,
i t i s r el evant t o t hi s Not e t o r ecogni ze t hat accept i ng evi dence
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
39/48
13
under an exempt i on cl assi f i es t he evi dence as nonhear say. FED. R.
EVI D. 801( d) . The resul t s of qual i f yi ng f or an exempt i on f r om
hear say and qual i f yi ng f or an except i on t o hear say ar e the same:
t he evi dence i s admi ssi bl e. FED. R. EVI D. 801( d) ; FED. R. EVI D.
803; FED. R. EVI D. 804; FED. R. EVI D. 807.
xc FED. R. EVI D. 801( d) ( 2) ( b) .
xci Bot h r ul es r el y on t he def i ni t i on of st at ement i n Rul e
801( a) , as bot h t he hear say rul e and t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons
exempt i on are part of Rul e 801. FED. R. EVI D. 801.
xci i FED. R. EVI D. 801, r epor t er s comment on r est yl ed Rul e 801.
xci i i Id.
xci v Thi s r equi r ement i s i l l ust r at ed by t he t i t l e of 802. FED. R.
EVI D. 802. The Advi sor y Commi t t ee updat ed the rul es t o el i mi nat e
r ef er ence t o admi ssi ons i n t he r ul e, opt i ng i nst ead t o use the
t ermi nol ogy Opposi ng Par t y St atement as t he headi ng f or Rul e
801 i n or der t o cl ar i f y t hat t he st at ement s i nt r oduced under
t hi s exempt i on need not be adver se to a part y s i nt er est as l ong
as t hey were si mpl y made by t he par t y agai nst whom t hey ar e
bei ng of f er ed. FED. R. EVI D. 801; FED. R. EVI D. 801, r epor t er s
comment on r est yl ed r ul e 801.xcv Uni t ed St at es v. J oshi , 896 F. 2d 1303, 1311 ( 11t h Ci r . 1990) .
xcvi Id.
xcvi i Id.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
40/48
14
xcvi i i Id.
xci x Id. ( emphasi s added) .
c
Id. at 1305.ci Id.
ci i Id. at 1312.
c i i i Id.
ci v Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 516 F. 3d 597 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) .
cv Id. at 602.
cvi Id.
cvi i Id. at 607.
cvi i i Id.
ci x U. S. v. Saf avi an, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 38 ( D. C. D. C. 2006) .
cx Id. at 42- 44.
cxi Id. at 43 ( ci t i ng FED. R. EVI D. 801( d) ( 2) ( b) ) .
cxi i Sea- Land Ser v. , I nc. v. Lozen I nt er n. , LLC, 285 F. 3d 808 ( 9t h
Ci r . 2002) .
cxi i i Id. at 821.
cxi v Id. ( quot i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 801( d) ( 2) ( B) ) .
cxv FED. R. EVI D. 801; supra not e 20 and accompanyi ng t ext .
cxvi
FED. R. EVI D. 801( a) .cxvi i St at e v. Davi s, 854 A. 2d 67, 73 ( Conn. App. Ct . 2004) .
cxvi i i See, e.g., St ate v. Bur ney, 954 A. 2d 793, 80204 ( Conn.
2008) ( out l i ni ng hol di ngs i n Connect i cut and ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
41/48
15
t hat a per son s demeanor i s not hear say) ; U. S. v. But l er , 763
F. 2d 11, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ( hol di ng t hat def endant s
gi r l f r i end s act i on of l eavi ng hi s house i n her car as an
i nf ormant had pr edi ct ed she woul dwas not asser t i ve conduct
because t here was no evi dence t hat her conduct was i nt ended as
an assert i on, and was i nst ead j ust or di nar y conduct ) ; U. S. v.
J ef f r i es, 457 Fed. Appx. 471, 483 ( 6th Ci r . 2012) ( hol di ng t hat
a person s mere possessi on of cocai ne was not i nt ended as an
asser t i on and t her ef or e was not hear say) .
cxi x Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) ( expl ai ni ng t hat Li ke i s a way
t o gi ve posi t i ve f eedback and t hat a l i ke i s a way or t o l et
someone know t hat you enj oy somet hi ng wi t hout l eavi ng a
comment . ) .
cxx Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Sept . 27, 2012) .
cxxi Supra Par t I I . B. 1. a.
cxxi i
The ACLU ci t es t he common under st andi ng of t he pur pose of a
Facebook l i ke i n i t s ami cus cur i ae br i ef f or t he appeal of
Bland v. Roberts. Supra not es 4246 and accompanyi ng t ext .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
42/48
16
cxxi i i For a di scussi on of t he st andar d of pr oof f or each
component of t he hear say r ul e, see infra note 129.
cxxi v
Davi d L. Hudson J r . , Like is Unliked, Amer i can Bar
Associ at i on J our nal 23 ( 2012) .
cxxv Id.
cxxvi Id.
cxxvi i Infra note 129.
cxxvi i i Supra Par t I I . b. 2.
cxxi x The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence addr ess di f f er ent possi bl e
modes of aut hent i cat i on under Rul e 901. FED. R. EVI D. 901. The
st andar d of pr oof f or aut hent i cat i ng evi dence i s l i st ed i n bot h
Rul e 901 and Rul e 104. FED. R. EVI D. 901; FED. R. EVI D. 104. The
quest i on of whether a pi ece of evi dence has been aut hent i cat ed
i nvol ves a pr el i mi nar y quest i on under Rul e 104. FED. R. EVI D. 104.
A pr el i mi nar y quest i on i s a quest i on t hat must be answer ed i n
or der t o det er mi ne the pur pose f or whi ch t he evi dence i s bei ng
of f er ed. For exampl e, i f a l et t er pur por t i ng t o be f r om Y i s
r el i ed upon t o est abl i sh admi ssi on by hi m, i t has no pr obat i ve
val ue unl ess Y wr ot e or aut hor i zed i t . FED. R. EVI D. 104( b) ,
advi sory commi t t ee s not e. The quest i on of whet her t he l i ke
but t on was cl i cked by our hypot het i cal Facebook user J ane i s a
quest i on of f act whi ch must be answered i n order t o make t he
l i ke r el evant , s i mi l ar t o t he of f er i ng of a l et t er agai nst Y.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
43/48
17
Ther ef or e, t he cour t woul d consi der t hi s i ssue under Feder al
Rul e of Evi dence 104( b) . Rul e 104( b) st at es t hat [ w] hen t he
r el evance of evi dence depends on whet her a f act exi st s, pr oof
must be i nt r oduced suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat t he f act
does exi st . The cour t may admi t t he pr oposed evi dence on t he
condi t i on t hat t he pr oof be i nt r oduced l at er . FED. R. EVI D.
104( b) .
Ther ef or e, i n or der f or a l i ke t o be aut hent i cat ed, t he
j udge need not f i nd t hat t he l i ke but t on was cl i cked by t he
per son agai nst whom t he l i ke i s bei ng of f er ed beyond a
r easonabl e doubt or even by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence. The
j udge must onl y f i nd t hat t her e i s evi dence suf f i ci ent t o
suppor t a f i ndi ng by a j ur y t hat J ane cl i cked l i ke. J ane i s
al so al l owed t o pr esent evi dence r ebut t i ng t he f act t hat she
cl i cked l i ke.
Some comment ators have st r essed t hat soci al medi a evi dence
pr esent s uni que di f f i cul t i es. See Scot t R. Gr ubman & Rober t H.
Snyder , Web 2.0 Crashes Through the Courthouse Door: Legal and
Ethical Issues Related to the Discoverability and Admissibility
of Social Networking Evidence, 37 Rut ger s Comput er & Tech. L. J .
156 (2011) ( st at i ng that web evi dence pr ovi des uni que
di f f i cul t i es) ; J essi ca C. Col l i er , Informal Internet Research:
Need, Reliability, and Admissibility, 38- AUG Col or ado Lawyer 111
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
44/48
18
( 2009) ( l i st i ng met hods of aut hent i cat i on f or i nt er net
evi dence) ; Vi nson, Blurred Boundaries, 41 U. MEM. L. REV. 355
( 2010) ( cal l i ng f or wr i t t en gui del i nes speci f i cal l y addr essi ng
t he use of soci al medi a i n t he l egal pr of essi on) . However , i n
t he case of Facebook l i kes, cour t s shoul d hol d t hat , si nce
J ane s l i ke i s cl i cked by someone who has accessed J ane s
pr i vat e Facebook, whi ch appear s wi t h J ane s name on a page
di spl ayi ng J ane s phot o, cont act i nf or mat i on, and ot her
per sonal l y i dent i f yi ng f eat ur es, t he suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a
f i ndi ng st andar d i s pr el i mi nar i l y met and l i kes ar e gener al l y
admi ssi bl e, subj ect t o r ebut t al evi dence on aut hent i cat i on i f
J ane can cast doubt on t he aut hent i ci t y of t he l i ke. Thi s
i nqui r y i nt o det er mi ni ng whet her a l i ke i s pr oper l y
aut hent i cat ed i s si mi l ar t o t he i nqui r y r equi r ed t o det er mi ne
whet her l i kes const i t ut e an adopt i ve admi ssi on. Infra Part
I I I . B.
cxxx I f t he unusual case ever ar i ses wher e t he l i ke but t on i s
cl i cked whi l e a wi t ness i s on t he wi t ness st and and t hen of f er ed
dur i ng t hat same t r i al agai nst t he par t y who cl i cked l i ke
whi l e on t he st and, t he anal ysi s i n t hi s Not e wi l l not appl y.
Thi s anal ysi s woul d not appl y because t he l i ke woul d not
const i t ut e hear say under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 801. For an
i nt erest i ng comment ary on t he potent i al use and dangers of
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
45/48
19
access t o soci al net wor ki ng r el at i ng t o t he cour t r oom i n ar eas
ot her t han t he admi ssi on of evi dence, see Marcy Zora, The Real
Social Network: How Jurors Use of Social Media and Smart Phones
Affects A Defendants Sixth Amendment Rights, 2012 U. I LL. L. REV.
557 ( 2012) .
cxxxi Uni t ed St at es v. Long, 905 F. 2d 1572, 1580 ( D. C. Ci r . 1990) ;
See also supra Par t I I . A. 1. b. ( di scussi ng t he asser t i on
r equi r ement f or st at ement s) .
cxxxi i Si nce both l i kes convey t he same message, i t may seem
ar bi t r ar y to dr aw t he l i ne based on gr ammat i cal st r uct ur e.
However , cour t s have commonl y r el i ed on gr ammat i cal st r uct ur e t o
det er mi ne i f a st at ement i s bei ng of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he
mat t er asserted, hol di ng t hat cer t ai n t ypes of gr ammat i cal
st r uct ur es i nher ent l y have no t r ut h mat t er t o be asser t ed. Supra
Par t I I . B. 1. b.
cxxxi i i See Uni t ed St at es v. Oguns, 921 F. 2d 442, 448 ( 2d Ci r .
1990) ( hol di ng t hat st at ement s of f er ed as ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence of knowl edge i s not of f er ed f or t he t r ut h of t he mat t er
asser t ed) ; see also supra Par t I I . B. 3. ( same) . I n t he case t hat
t he evi dence i s bei ng of f er ed f or J ane s knowl edge of ot her
st udent s bul l yi ng Har r y, i t woul d be of f er ed as ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence of knowl edge, si mi l ar t o t he quest i on i n United States
v. Oguns. Oguns, 921 F. 2d at 448.
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
46/48
20
cxxxi v Of cour se, l i kes whi ch ar e not excl udabl e as hear say may
or may not be excl uded f r om evi dence on ot her gr ounds such as
char act er evi dence or r el evance. Thi s Not e onl y addr esses t he
appl i cat i on of t he hear say r ul e t o l i kes, and does not cont end
t hat l i kes do or do not qual i f y f or excl usi on f r om evi dence
under any ot her Feder al Rul e of Evi dence.
cxxxv See St at e v. Ri chcr eek, 964 N. E. 2d 442, 516 ( Ohi o Ct . App.
2011) ( di scussi ng t he pr oper use of a st at ement t hat has dual
use) ; see also supra not es 79- 81 and accompanyi ng t ext ( same) .
cxxxvi See supra Part I I I . A. ( expl ai ni ng why a l i ke gener al l y
const i t ut es hear say) .
cxxxvi i Uni t ed St at es v. J oshi , 896 F. 2d 1303, 1311 ( 11t h Ci r .
1990) ; see supra Par t I I . C. 1. ( expl ai ni ng how nonver bal conduct
may const i t ut e a st at ement ) .
cxxxvi i i FED. R. EVI D. 901; FED. R. EVI D. 104; supra note 129.
cxxxi x FED. R. EVI D. 801( d) ( 2) ( b) . See supra Par t I I . C. ( expl ai ni ng
t he r equi r ement s f or t he adopt i ve admi ssi ons exempt i on) .
cxl Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,
ht t p: / / devel oper s. Facebook. com/ docs/ r ef er ence/ pl ugi ns/ l i ke/
( l ast vi si t ed Nov. 2, 2012) .cxl i Facebook Hel p Cent er , Update Your Basic Info, Facebook,
ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 334656726616576/ ( l ast vi si t ed Nov.
2, 2012) .
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
47/48
21
cxl i i Facebook Devel opers, Profile Picture & Cover Photo,
Facebook, ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 388305657884730/ ( l ast
vi si t ed Nov. 2, 2012) .c x l i i i Facebook Hel p Cent er , Update Your Basic Info, Facebook,
ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 334656726616576/ ( l ast vi si t ed Nov.
2, 2012) .
cxl i v Facebook Hel p Cent er , Who can see the friends section of my
timeline?, Facebook,
ht t p: / / www. f acebook. com/ hel p/ 115450405225661/ ?q=f r i ends%20sect i o
n%20of %20t i mel i ne&si d=0r MNX2nd1f Dcf Y73O ( l ast vi si t ed Nov. 2,
2012) .
cxl v Facebook Devel opers, Location Tagging, Facebook,
ht t ps: / / devel oper s. f acebook. com/ docs/ opengr aph/ l ocat i on_t aggi ng/
( l ast vi si t ed Nov. 2, 2012) .
cxl vi For f ur t her di scussi on of t he suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a
f i ndi ng st andar d i n t he cont ext of aut hent i cat i on, see supra
note 129.
cxl vi i For exampl e, t he anal ysi s used i n t hi s Not e woul d al so be
appl i cabl e t o Re- t weet s on Twi t t er .
cxl vi i i
See supra Par t I I . C. 2 f or a di scussi on of cour t pr ecedent
deal i ng wi t h f or war ded e- mai l s.
cxl i x The t er m f r i endi ng or f r i ended r ef er s t o t he acti on of
accept i ng or r equest i ng another Facebook user as your Facebook
8/14/2019 Friending the finders.pdf
48/48