Legal Cyber Academy
Case law repository

Commonwealth v. Williams

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (State high court)
Decided
2010
Citation
456 Mass. 857 (2010)
Standard applied
Authentication of platform messages — access versus authorship
Evidence or expert excludedAuthentication
Read the full opinion456 Mass. 857 (2010) · full text on CourtListener

What the court held

There was insufficient evidence to authenticate MySpace messages urging a witness not to testify, and they should not have been admitted. Testimony that the messages arrived from an account bearing the sender's name and photograph established only that someone with access to that page sent them, not who sent them. The error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, so the conviction stood.

Why

The court noted the absence of any testimony about how secure such a page is, who can access it, or whether codes are needed, and no expert evidence that no one other than the account holder could send from it. Analogising to telephone calls, it held that a recipient's testimony that the caller claimed to be a particular person is not enough on its own to admit the call as that person's.

Our reading — not the court’s words

Why this matters in practice

Williams identifies precisely the evidence that would have cured the problem, and it is evidence a forensic examiner produces: account security, who could log in, and whether the platform's records show the session. It is the clearest judicial statement that access and authorship are different findings. Note also the harmless-error outcome — winning the authentication point frequently does not win the appeal, which is why the objection is worth far more at trial than afterwards.

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: MySpace · authorship · account security · harmless error

Cited 48times 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.