Friending the finders.pdf

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/48

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


9/48


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


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.


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


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


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 .


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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) .


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) .


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,



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,



xv Facebook Devel opers, Like Button, FACEBOOK,



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


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.


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.


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/


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 .


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) ,


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) ,


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) .


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


36/48


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.


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


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.


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


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,


( 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,



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 .


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.


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


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


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.


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,


( 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) .


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


48/48

Documents

Friending the finders.pdf