The Use of MySpace in a Court of Law
The Toms River Bureau1 reports that the defense attorney for a man accused of molesting a girl wants the girl’s MySpace revelation that she is a liar to be submitted before the court. Defense attorneys David Schlendorf and Veronica Norgaard for the 78 year old accused man, Albert Mandycz are attempting to bring before the jury evidence that the girl admitted on MySpace that she “is the best liar you will ever meet”. Essentially, the defense attorneys are trying to discredit the girl’s evidence that she was molested between the ages of 5 and 8. Laura Pierro, Assistant Orange County Prosecutor is attempting to exclude such evidence on the grounds that it will be difficult to prove that the MySpace allegation was actually made by her and secondly that the MySpace allegation has not been altered in any way. Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson has yet to decide whether to allow such evidence to be presented before the jury. Purely on a theoretical basis, I see no reason why the courts should not allow such evidence to be admitted. The court presently admits a wide range of evidence such as mobile text messages and tapped telephone conversations. Thus, as a matter of principle the courts would not be overextending their powers by allowing written evidence from MySpace. What is problematic however is that MySpace is not a secure site in the sense that it is easy for someone to hack into someone else’s MySpace account or to alter the MySpace layouts with the permission of the user. But the primary issue is not whether the court can allow information written on a social networking site but the weight which the court places on such evidence. It would not be difficult for the prosecutor to argue that the girl’s revelation that she is the “world’s best liar” is not necessarily true. Similarly, it is not be difficult to argue that such a revelation does not mean that she lied about the molestation accusations. However, such evidence does not need to be substantiated in order for it to become a dangerous weapon in the hands of the jury. The girl’s revelation makes her a less creditable victim in the eyes of the jury, particularly in light of the fact that the girl was allegedly molested the ages of 5 and 8. Thus, even if the evidence was purely circumstantial, such evidence would weigh heavily upon the thoughts of the jurors. What is a little frightening about this case, is that if the MySpace evidence were to be accepted by the courts, it would appear that no aspect of one’s life is private in a court of law. Such circumstantial character evidence should not be as valid as actual written or verbal evidence. Ultimately, the courts need to be wary of allowing new technological evidence.
