United States v. Zhyltsou
Not reported in case text (2014)
Rule of Law:
To authenticate an item of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. The mere existence of a webpage with a defendant's name and photograph on the internet is insufficient for authentication without additional evidence tying the defendant to its creation or content.
Facts:
- Vladyslav Timku previously paid Aliaksandr Zhyltsou to create false diplomatic identification documents for a scheme to avoid taxes on luxury automobiles through a corporation called Martex International.
- In the summer of 2009, Timku asked Zhyltsou to create a forged birth certificate for an invented infant daughter, which Timku sought to use to avoid compulsory military service in Ukraine.
- Zhyltsou agreed to forge the birth certificate as a "favor" and began creating it on a computer while he and Timku chatted in a Brooklyn Internet café.
- On August 27, 2009, Zhyltsou sent the completed forged birth certificate to Timku via e-mail from azmadeuz@gmail.com, an address Timku had often used to correspond with Zhyltsou.
- Timku used the fake document to successfully receive a deferment from Ukrainian military service.
- Later, Special Agent Robert Cline discovered a VK.com profile page purporting to be "Alexander Zhiltsov," which contained Zhyltsou's photograph, listed "Azmadeuz" as his Skype address, and stated he worked at Martex International and an Internet café called Cyber Heaven.
Procedural Posture:
- Aliaksandr Zhyltsou was charged with a single count of the unlawful transfer of a false identification document.
- Zhyltsou was convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.).
- The District Court sentenced Zhyltsou to time served and one year of post-release supervision.
- Judgment was entered in March 2013.
- Zhyltsou, as Defendant-Appellant, brought a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 printout of a social media profile page, containing a defendant's name, photograph, and biographical details, constitute sufficient evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 for authentication as belonging to the defendant, when no other evidence ties the defendant to the creation or control of the page?
Opinions:
Majority - Debra Ann Livingston
No, a printout of a social media profile page, containing a defendant's name, photograph, and biographical details, does not constitute sufficient evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 for authentication as belonging to the defendant, when no other evidence ties the defendant to the creation or control of the page. Judge Livingston explained that Rule 901(a) requires "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." While the bar for authentication is not "particularly high," it still necessitates "sufficient proof... so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification." The government failed to provide such a basis; Special Agent Cline only testified that the page was "presently accessible" on the Internet and provided no extrinsic information linking Zhyltsou to its authorship or creation. The court rejected the argument that the page's contents alone were sufficient for circumstantial authentication under Rule 901(b)(4), reasoning that the information was general, known by Timku and potentially others, and therefore could have been created by someone else with reasons to falsely attribute it to the defendant. Additionally, there was no evidence that identity verification was required to create such a page, which might have strengthened the inference of authorship. The court concluded that the government needed to show some basis for a reasonable juror to conclude that the page was "in fact Zhyltsou's profile," and it failed to do so, rendering the evidence inadmissible. The court further determined that this evidentiary error was not harmless because the prosecution's case on the critical issue of whether Zhyltsou sent the fake birth certificate was not overwhelming, resting largely on Timku's testimony, whose credibility was compromised by his cooperation agreement and history of deceit. The VK page played a significant, non-cumulative role in corroborating Timku's testimony, as underscored by the prosecutor in her summation, making it likely that the improperly admitted evidence substantially influenced the jury's verdict.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of proper authentication for digital evidence, particularly content derived from social media platforms. It establishes that merely presenting a webpage with a defendant's name and photo, even if consistent with known biographical details, is insufficient under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to attribute its content to the defendant. Future cases involving social media evidence will need to present additional corroborating evidence—such as testimony from someone who saw the defendant create the profile, forensic evidence, or unique identifying information not publicly known—to meet the authentication threshold. The ruling safeguards against the ease with which online identities can be fabricated, requiring prosecutors to demonstrate a genuine connection between a defendant and the digital evidence to ensure fairness and reliability in legal proceedings.
