United States v. Oreckinto
234 F. Supp. 3d 360, 2017 WL 545781, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19028 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The authentication requirement for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 is context-specific and depends on the purpose for which the evidence is offered. For an internet image of a commercially available product offered solely for visual comparison, the testimony of the person who found the image can be sufficient authentication without needing testimony from the manufacturer.
Facts:
- In March 2011, a warehouse in Wethersfield, Connecticut, was burglarized.
- Surveillance video from the warehouse showed the burglar wearing a mask and black clothing that had the stylized letters “SP” across the chest.
- Law enforcement obtained a photograph from the Facebook page of Andrew Oreckinto's spouse, showing Oreckinto wearing a zipped-down black hooded sweatshirt with some visible white lettering.
- A detective, investigating the burglary, ran an internet search for black-and-white hooded “SP” sweatshirts.
- The search produced images of a “SouthPole” brand sweatshirt, which the detective copied.
- The government sought to introduce these internet-sourced images to allow the jury to visually compare them to the sweatshirt worn by the burglar in the video and the sweatshirt worn by Oreckinto in the photograph.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Oreckinto was prosecuted for burglary in the U.S. District Court.
- The Government intended to introduce internet images of a 'SouthPole' sweatshirt as Exhibit #201V.
- Prior to trial, Oreckinto filed a motion in limine to preclude the admission of the internet images.
- During the trial, the court overruled Oreckinto's objection and admitted the exhibit, stating it would provide a written explanation later.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 901 preclude the admission of an internet image of a commercial product, offered solely for the purpose of visual comparison, without independent verification or testimony from the product's manufacturer?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyer, J.
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 does not preclude the admission of such an image because the standard for authentication is not particularly high and depends on the limited purpose for which the evidence is offered. The rule requires only that the proponent produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the item is what the proponent claims it is. Here, the government claims the exhibit is an image of a type of commercially available sweatshirt, offered solely to aid the jury in a visual comparison, not to prove facts about its manufacturing or origin. The detective's testimony about how he found the image is sufficient authentication for this limited purpose, analogous to showing a generic internet image of a Coca-Cola can or a BMW to illustrate a witness's testimony. The court distinguished this from cases like United States v. Vayner, where internet evidence was offered to prove authorship, which requires a higher authentication standard. Any challenges to the image's reliability, such as it being a 'knock-off,' go to the weight of the evidence for the jury to consider, not its admissibility.
Analysis:
This ruling provides a practical, purpose-driven framework for authenticating evidence sourced from the internet, a critical issue in modern litigation. It clarifies that the authentication threshold under Rule 901 is flexible and significantly lower when evidence is used for illustrative or comparative purposes rather than to prove a substantive fact like authorship or origin. This decision makes it easier for litigants to use generic, internet-sourced images of commercial products as demonstrative aids, streamlining the introduction of common types of visual evidence without requiring burdensome foundational testimony from manufacturers.
