United States v. Lubich

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prima facie showing of authenticity had been made by evidence that incriminating internet searches were made using defendant’s account
• noting that any flaws go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissi- bility
• noting that, once Rule 901’s standard had been met, the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the government expert on “the possibility that someone else was sitting at a computer that [the defendant] previously logged onto and entered the information without her knowledge”
• explaining that authenticity and hearsay are distinct evidentiary issues
• computer data contained numerous references to appellant’s personal computer information satisfies MIL. R. EVID. 901(b)(4
• cit- ing United States v. Freeman, 65 M.J. 451, 453 (C.A.A.F. 2008)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).