United States v. Angela L. Jackson
53 Fed. R. Serv. 1030, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6018, 208 F.3d 633 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence procured from the internet, such as website postings, must be properly authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to establish its authorship and source, and it cannot typically be admitted under the business records hearsay exception (FRE 803(6)) by claiming it is a record of the internet service provider, who is merely a conduit for the content.
Facts:
- In 1996, law student Angela Jackson purchased $2,000 worth of artwork from artist Bayo Iribhogbe.
- Iribhogbe shipped the artwork to Jackson in four packages via United Parcel Service (UPS).
- Upon receiving the four undamaged packages, Jackson filed a fraudulent claim with UPS for $572,000, falsely alleging she received only three packages and that they were damaged and defaced with racial epithets.
- To support her fraud, Jackson visited white supremacist websites and mailed packages containing racist material under the UPS logo to prominent African-American leaders, making it appear that a white supremacist group was targeting them and disparaging UPS.
- Jackson mailed one set of fraudulent hate mail on November 25, 1996, and a second set to 14 individuals, including herself, on December 22, 1996.
- Prior to the UPS scheme, Jackson had been arrested by Chicago Police Sergeant Bernadette Heelan.
- Following that arrest, Jackson used her credit card to order wine and adult products delivered to Heelan's home, then filed an internal affairs complaint accusing Heelan of stealing her credit card.
Procedural Posture:
- Angela Jackson was indicted in the U.S. District Court on five counts of mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice.
- Before trial, the government filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony from David Stennett and printouts of website postings from white supremacist groups.
- The district court judge granted the government's motion, excluding the proposed evidence.
- A jury convicted Jackson on all counts.
- Jackson, as the appellant, appealed her convictions on the fraud counts to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the evidentiary rulings and the joinder of one count.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding website postings offered as exculpatory evidence when the proponent fails to authenticate the postings as being created by the purported authors and the evidence constitutes inadmissible hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Terence T. Evans
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by excluding website postings that have not been properly authenticated. The court found that the exclusion of the web postings was justified primarily because they lacked authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Jackson failed to provide evidence that the white supremacist groups actually authored the web postings taking credit for the hate mail, as opposed to Jackson, a skilled computer user, having posted them herself. The court also determined the postings were inadmissible hearsay, as they were out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It rejected Jackson's argument that they fell under the business records exception (FRE 803(6)), reasoning that Internet Service Providers are merely conduits for information and do not create, monitor, or adopt user-generated content as their own business records. Finally, the court held that the joinder of the separate fraud count involving Sergeant Heelan was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) because the offenses were of the 'same or similar character,' both being mail fraud charges with a similar modus operandi.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its early and influential analysis of the admissibility of electronic evidence from the internet. The court's decision established a critical precedent that standard evidentiary rules of authentication and hearsay apply with full force to digital content. By classifying Internet Service Providers as 'mere conduits' for user content, the court made it difficult for parties to use the business records exception to admit website postings, blogs, or social media content without direct proof of authorship. This ruling forces litigants to find more direct ways to authenticate online evidence, such as testimony from the author or forensic data, and underscores the judiciary's initial skepticism toward the reliability of information found online.
