|
Digital
Law Suits – United States vs. Tank
 The
acceptance of computer generated evidence in the court of law is
governed by the provision of Federal Rule 901(a). The US courts have
addressed the matter of authentication of evidence in the same manner
as was done traditionally. The case United States vs. Tank which
involved the admissibility of computer logs of internet chats has been
significant in illustrating this law.
In this case Tank who was charged with being pedophile conspiring the
exchange of explicitly sexual images of under aged children and many
other offences. The prosecution had tumbled upon text files which
recorded online chats which took place in computer of one of Tanks
accomplice and co-conspirators Riva which reveled that both of them
belonged to an Internet chat room called Orchard club. Rivas computer
has been programmed to record al the conversation in the chat room in
text files which were stored in his computer. Tanks attorneys
argued that these chat room logs cannot be used as evidence in the
court of law as the prosecution has failed to establish the
authenticity of these logs. It was argued that since these logs were
incomplete documents and could have been materially altered before
seizure by government authorities; these cannot be admitted as evidence.
The district court overrules Tank’s objection as they sought to
question their weight as evidence rater than their admissibility and
admitted the logs as evidence. This decision of the district court was
appealed against by Tank. In its decision, the appellate court took of
the matter and addressed the issues arising out of as to whether the
government has established a sufficient foundation for admission of the
chat room logs as evidence. Analyzing the applicability of the Federal
Rule of Evidence 901(a) in the context of modern digital law suits the
appellate court observed that the court must only admit evidence if
sufficiently supported by corrobative evidence which can enable a juror
would find favor of authenticity. The prosecution must establish a
direct connection between the evidence produced and the defendant by
producing supporting evidences.
The chat room logs were confirmed in the testimony by the
co-conspirator Riva who admitted having recorded the chat room
conversations between the participants of the chat room called Orchid
Club. The prosecution established that Tank was the person who has
assumed the cyber identity of ‘Cessna’ in the chat room.
This was confirmed by other co-conspirators in the case that Cessna was
the chat room identify of Tank. Some others also testified that it was
Tank who showed up when invited by the person who used the screen name
Cessna. The court accepted the prosecutions arguments and admitted that
Tank was Cessna and the logs were directly pointing towards him.
The appellate court deiced that the government had made adequate
foundations which established the authenticity of the chat room logs as
evidence under Federal Rule 901(a). The decision in this case has been
consistent with many other cases which addressed the Federal Rule of
Evidence 901(a). The law does not require any set procedures and
rules to establish the authenticity of evidence.
|
