The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals recently weighed in on whether Facebook Messenger communications were properly admitted into evidence.
In State of Tennessee v. Meadows, No. M2021-01357-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 28, 2023) the defendant objected to the trial court’s admission of certain Messenger communications into evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit the communications, holding there was sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant Meadows authored the Facebook messages.
Determining whether “social media evidence has been authenticated requires a fact specific analysis.” State v. Jabriel Linzy, No. E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3575871, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2017), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017). In Jabriel Linzy, the State sought to introduce messages found on Facebook and Twitter that reflected the defendant and the victim were members of rival gangs and that the defendant had issued threats against the victim. Id. at *13. The defendant argued that the comments could not be attributed to him; in other words, the comments could not be authenticated. Id. at *11. A panel of this Court stated that “evidence from social media and emails was authenticated when the prosecution offered corroborating circumstantial evidence.” Id. at *12. The corroborating circumstantial evidence in that case consisted of a witness who knew the defendant’s Twitter account, a witness who knew the victim’s Twitter account, and witnesses who had seen certain photographs on the defendant’s and the victim’s Facebook pages. Id. at *13. Examining cases from other jurisdictions, the panel in Jabriel Linzy concluded that the defendant’s challenge to the State’s authentication of the messages “‘goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.’” Id. at *12 (quoting State v. Vermaine M. Burns, No. M2014-00357-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 2105543, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 5, 2015) (holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to authenticate Facebook chats and email), no perm. app. filed).
Id. at p. 6-7.
The court explained that the Facebook Messenger account bore Defendant’s name an photographs and had messages specific to the Defendant. Other evidence demonstrated that the account was authentic.
Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the court noted that “the State is not required to affirmatively prove that a defendant was the author of a social media communication to authenticate it, and Defendant’s challenge to the account’s authenticity “goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.” Jabriel Linzy, 2017 WL 3575871, at *12.” Id. at p. 7.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has given a handy roadmap on how to admit such items into evidence.