Facebook Unfriend As Evidence

This headnote describes an opinion issued today by the Maryland Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals held that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Facebook-related evidence, as there was sufficient circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) for reasonable juror to find that Facebook profiles belonged to defendant, Hayes Sample, and to defendant’s alleged accomplice, Claude Mayo, and to find that defendant unfriended accomplice on Facebook day after attempted armed robbery, in which accomplice was fatally shot.

Court of Appeals reaffirmed holding in Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 678, 113 A.3d 695, 722 (2015), and concluded that, to authenticate social media evidence, there must be proof from which reasonable juror could find that it is more likely than not that evidence is what proponent purports it to be. Court of Appeals concluded State was not required to eliminate all possibilities that were inconsistent with authenticity, or prove beyond any question that defendant was one who used Facebook profile to unfriend accomplice’s Facebook profile.

Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) for trial court to conclude that reasonable juror could find that it was more likely than not that “SoLo Haze” Facebook profile belonged to Sample and that “claude.mayo.5” Facebook profile belonged to Mayo. Evidence indicating that SoLo Haze profile belonged to Sample and claude.mayo.5 profile belonged to Mayo supported conclusion that Sample used SoLo Haze profile to unfriend claude.mayo.5 profile. Court of Appeals determined that, moreover, additional evidence supporting conclusion that more likely than not Sample used SoLo Haze profile to unfriend claude.mayo.5 profile included temporal proximity of unfriending to attempted armed robbery, Sample had motive to distance himself from Mayo, and during seventeen-day period after attempted
armed robbery, claude.mayo.5 Facebook profile was only profile that was unfriended from SoLo Haze Facebook profile. All of these circumstances were sufficient for trial court to allow Facebook-related evidence to be presented to jury.

The court discusses the authentication of social media evidence

Where a party attempts to authenticate social media evidence through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), “the inquiry is context-specific[,]” and the presence or absence of certain biographical information—such as the relevant person’s date of birth—is not necessarily dispositive. Sublet, 442 Md. at 676-77, 113 A.3d at 721. When attempting to sufficiently authenticate social media evidence through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), the party “need not rule out all possibilities [that are] inconsistent with authenticity, or prove beyond any doubt that the [social media] evidence is what it purports to be[.]” Id. at 666, 113 A.3d at 715 (quoting Vayner, 769 F.3d at 130) (cleaned up).

Here, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) for the circuit court to conclude that a reasonable juror could find that it was more likely than not that the SoLo Haze Facebook profile belonged to Sample…

There was also sufficient circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) for the circuit court to conclude that a reasonable juror could find it was more likely than not that the claude.mayo.5 Facebook profile belonged to Mayo.

Mayo was killed by gunshots from the robbery victim. (Mike Frisch)