Maine SC finds chat log properly authenticated by detective testimony

The Maine Supreme Court recently held that a chat conversation between the victim and defendant was properly authenticated after a detective who witnessed the conversation testified to its legitimacy (State v. Churchill,   32 A.3d 1026 (2011).

The victim, a 12-year-old girl, used instant messaging software to converse with the defendant while detectives monitored the conversation. After the chat was over, the victim emailed a transcript to one of the detectives. The trial court admitted a printout of the conversation after the detective testified that the printout was what appeared on the computer screen and that the text had not been changed.

The Maine Supreme Court found these additional factors relevant to the authentication of the chat log:

• The e-mail was sent while the officers were at the victim's home and was received on the detective's phone while there.
• The detectives monitored the entire chat and closely supervised the victim while she e-mailed the log.
• The "time stamps on each message show[ed] an uninterrupted sequence, the messages respond[ed] logically to one another, and Churchill's messages respond[ed] directly to statements the victim made over the telephone."

Authentication can sometimes be tricky when presenting digital evidence, but courts usually defer to testimony of law enforcement in cases like this. See Stearman v. State, 2010 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1115 (2010); Jackson v. State, 320 S.W.3d 13 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). Of course, this situation is slightly different than other cases because the detective simply observed the conversation - in Stearman and Jackson, the officers were a party to the chat.

For other posts dealing with authentication of digital evidence, click here.