Legal Cyber Academy
Case law repository

Commonwealth v. Purdy

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (State high court)
Decided
2011
Citation
459 Mass. 442 (2011)
Standard applied
Mass. G. Evid. § 901 — authorship by circumstantial evidence
Evidence or expert admittedAuthentication
Read the full opinion459 Mass. 442 (2011) · full text on CourtListener

What the court held

E-mail exchanges recovered from a computer the defendant admitted owning, and for which he supplied all the passwords, were sufficiently authenticated as his, absent persuasive evidence of fraud, tampering or hacking. The court held that the mere fact a message bears a person's name, or comes from an e-mail or social-networking account bearing that name, is not by itself enough to authenticate it as that person's.

Why

The court reasoned by analogy to telephone calls and letters: a caller's or writer's self-identification is not sufficient authentication, but a reply-letter pattern or other confirming circumstances will do. Applying the same basic principles to e-mail, it found the location of the messages on the defendant's own password-protected machine, plus corroborating content including an attached photograph of him, sufficient. It added that the possibility of alteration cannot be a ground for excluding e-mail as a matter of course any more than for paper.

Our reading — not the court’s words

Why this matters in practice

Purdy is the case that states both halves of the rule a practitioner needs: account naming alone proves nothing, and custody of the machine plus content corroboration usually proves enough. The footnoted distinction is worth noting too — if the messages are offered to show what was received rather than who wrote them, authorship need not be established at all, only that the exhibit accurately reproduces what the account sent and received. That reframing sometimes rescues an exhibit that cannot be attributed.

This paragraph is Legal Cyber Academy’s editorial assessment of the decision’s practical importance. The court said none of it. For what the court actually said, read the opinion.

Additional detail

Tags: e-mail · authorship · reply-letter rule · password protection

Cited 93times in CourtListener’s corpus at the time this entry was compiled. Treat it as a rough measure of influence, not of correctness.

Summarised from the opinion as retrieved from CourtListener. Reference material, not legal advice. Back to the repository.