Instant Messaging
Summary:
A criminal defendant convicted of assault claimed that instant messages threatening the victim should not have been admitted without authentication evidence of their source from the Internet Service Provider or the testimony of a computer forensics expert. The court rejected this argument, which it characterized as having the court create a whole new body of law just to deal with e-mails or instant messages.
Although the court recognized that such digital messages are inherently unreliable because of their relative anonymity and the fact that while an electronic message can be traced to a particular computer it can rarely be connected to a specific author with any certainty, the court found that the same uncertainties exist with traditional written documents.
Thus the court saw no justification for constructing unique rules of admissibility of electronic communications such as instant messages. Therefore, the court held that under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 circumstantial evidence, such as the contents of the writing and surrounding events, is sufficient to establish authenticity. In this case, the circumstantial evidence establishing authenticity included the fact that defendant had acknowledged his first name in one of the instant messages and had failed to dispute having sent the instant messages in verbal discussions shortly after their occurrence.
