Social media has become an integral part of our lives. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram allow us to share our thoughts and opinions on a wide range of topics with friends, family and even strangers. However, these public posts can sometimes land people in legal trouble if they contain threats, defamatory statements or admissions of crimes. This raises an important question – can social media comments be used as evidence in court?
What does the law say about using social media posts in court?
Generally speaking, social media comments are considered hearsay evidence. Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Such statements are usually inadmissible in court unless they fall under certain exceptions. However, social media posts can potentially be admitted under the following hearsay exceptions:
Party Opponent Admission
Any statement made by a party in a case and offered against them is admissible. So if the defendant made incriminating statements on social media, the prosecution could potentially use it as evidence.
State of Mind
Social media posts can reveal a person’s state of mind or intention at the time they made the statements. If relevant, such posts may be admissible under this hearsay exception.
Excited Utterance
Statements made in response to a startling event may be allowed in court as excited utterances. Angry or emotional social media rants made spontaneously could fall under this exception.
Present Sense Impression
Comments made on social media to describe an event as it is unfolding may be admitted as present sense impressions.
Business Records
Social media records maintained by the platform in the regular course of business could potentially be used, provided proper authentication.
So while social media posts are generally considered hearsay, they can still be used as evidence if they fall under these exceptions. The court has discretion to determine admissibility based on relevance and reliability.
Are private messages on social media admissible?
Generally, private social media messages, such as Facebook messenger chats or Twitter direct messages, can be used in court like any other private conversation. They may be subject to hearsay rules but could be admissible under the party admission or state of mind exceptions.
However, it is important to authenticate private social media conversations by proving they are between the alleged sender and recipient. This often requires obtaining records directly from the social media company through a subpoena.
Can anonymous social media posts be used as evidence?
Using anonymous social media posts as evidence comes with significant authentication challenges. It is difficult to prove who authored the statements without access to account information and IP addresses from the social media company.
If properly authenticated, anonymous statements on social media may be admissible under hearsay exceptions similar to non-anonymous posts. But courts are generally cautious about allowing anonymous social media evidence since the source and veracity cannot be easily confirmed.
So while not impossible, it is an uphill battle to convince a court that anonymous social media posts can be attributed to a party in a case. Any circumstantial evidence connecting the party to the anonymous account would need to be compelling.
Notable cases involving social media evidence
Here are some notable cases where social media played a key role:
The People v. Harris
In 2013, Bobby Johnson was murdered in Chicago. At trial, prosecutors introduced hundreds of pages of damning tweets, Instagram photos and rap videos created by the accused killer, Derrick Harris, documenting his gang activity. Harris was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison. The Illinois Appellate Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the social media posts were relevant and properly authenticated.
Commonwealth v. Mangello
In 2014, Anthony Mangello was convicted of indecent assault based largely on messages he exchanged with a 12-year old girl on MySpace. Although Mangello claimed someone else authored the messages, the court admitted printouts of the MySpace conversations as the pages contained his name and photo.
United States v. Tankleff
Steven Tankleff was initially convicted in 1990 of murdering his parents based on a confession he gave as a teenager. After serving 17 years in prison, Tankleff’s conviction was vacated. In the ensuing civil case, Tankleff’s legal team used MySpace posts to portray one of the original detectives in a negative light. The social media evidence alleged the detective intimidated witnesses, ultimately coercing a false confession from Tankleff. The case settled for over $3 million.
What are the risks of using social media evidence?
While social media can provide useful evidence, there are also significant risks attorneys and prosecutors must consider:
Authenticity questions
It can be challenging to prove who actually authored social media posts unless metadata is obtained directly from the platform company. Certain types of evidence, like screenshots or anonymous accounts, require deeper authentication efforts.
Expectation of privacy
Some social media evidence may raise privacy concerns or amount to improper government surveillance if obtained without a warrant. Reasonable privacy expectations depend on the type of platform and privacy settings.
Prejudicial or misleading information
Social media evidence may include inflammatory language, questionable character evidence or photoshopped images. This creates risks of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury if proper context is not provided.
Incomplete records
Social media only offers snapshots of information. A post may lack important context that surfaces during testimony. Keeping this in mind is vital when evaluating the weight of social media evidence.
Credibility debates
The casual nature of social media often leads to exaggerations or lies told in jest. The meaning and sincerity behind posts can easily be disputed by opposing parties.
5 Best practices for using social media evidence
Given the potential pitfalls, attorneys should follow these best practices when using social media for court evidence:
Thoroughly investigate authentication
Take all reasonable steps to authenticate the source and ownership of social media posts prior to submission as evidence. Work directly with the social media company if possible.
Be mindful of privacy
Evaluate whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy attached to the social media content based on privacy settings and platform policies. Get warrants when necessary.
Provide proper context
Admitting isolated social media posts can be misleading. Provide the full context of conversations and account histories relevant to the case whenever possible.
Verify supporting facts
Claims and statements made on social media should be corroborated with independent supporting facts through further investigation.
Argue relevance and reliability
Be prepared to explain why specific social media evidence is relevant and reliable when facing evidentiary objections. Focus on corroborated facts rather than sensationalistic rhetoric.
Can social media help or hurt your case?
Social media is a virtual goldmine of potential evidence, but also contains many pitfalls for the unwary attorney. While social media evidence can help prove or disprove key facts, unfair prejudice and authentication issues abound. Admissibility is always case-specific and requires judges to balance probative vs. prejudicial value.
The best practice is to approach social media evidence with cautious optimism – recognize its value but verify, corroborate and contextualize. Social media should complement a case rather than act as a substitute for thorough investigation and physical evidence. With proper foundation and authentication, social media content can become a compelling part of any legal argument. Otherwise, it may derail a case and damage credibility in the eyes of judge and jury.
Key Takeaways
– Social media posts are generally hearsay but may be admissible under certain exceptions like party admissions and state of mind.
– Private messages can be used like other private conversations but require proper authentication.
– Anonymous posts face significant authentication challenges and are viewed skeptically by courts.
– Attorneys should authenticate, corroborate and provide context for social media evidence they submit.
– Social media evidence comes with risks like privacy concerns, misleading information and credibility debates.
– With a proper foundation, social media can help prove facts but may also unfairly sway judges and juries.
Conclusion
Social media has complicated the legal landscape by creating a vast, digital record of our lives. As social media litigation proliferates, courts are still adapting to reconcile privacy rights and evidentiary standards with this virtual forum. While the legal precedents continue to evolve, it is clear that social media can be a dramatic courtroom tool or a devastating liability if improperly handled. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to approach social media evidence with care, precision and objectivity. With thoughtful authentication, corroboration and context, social media content can become invaluable legal evidence and allow facts to emerge that otherwise may never come to light. But without caution, it risks polluting the justice process with unreliable, prejudicial and misleading information.