Molander v. Harvey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a photo and profile name appearing on the printout of a Facebook page “are certainly factors that [a] trial court may consider” in its authentication analysis
• noting that a photo and profile name appearing on the printout of 17 a Facebook page “are certainly factors that [a] trial court may consider” in its 18 authentication analysis
• acknowledging that “Delaware follows the ‘distinguishing characteristics’ rationale,” and “noting that Delaware courts have authenticated handwritten letters from inside prison based on the nicknames of the parties involved and references to the crimes”
• explaining that authenticity standard presents “preliminary question for the trial judge to decide” and “[i]f the [j]udge answers that question in the affirmative, the jury will then decide whether to accept or reject the evidence”
• declining to require expert testimony to authenticate social media evidence and leaving the weight of such evidence to the fact-finder
• analyzing state evidentiary rules and concluding that ‘“[although we are mindful of the concern that social media evidence could be falsified, the existing [rules] provide an appropriate framework for determining admissibility.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).