People v. Glover
2015 WL 795690
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Roger Julius Glover (aka "Brooklyn") was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree (after deliberation) murder for directing a member of his street "family" to kill the victim; sentence: life without parole.
- Victim found with severe chop/stab wounds and a missing finger; the missing finger was found in the pocket of Jordan Rowland, who was arrested separately the same day.
- Prosecution theory: Rowland killed the victim at Glover's direction after Glover placed a "green light" on the victim; several street teens testified Glover ordered the killing and demanded proof it was done.
- Prosecution introduced Facebook printouts from an account linked to Glover containing threats, discussion of a "green light," and post-murder exchanges; a Facebook records custodian affidavit and testimony about how records were subpoenaed supported admission.
- Defense attacked Facebook evidence as unauthenticated hearsay and argued witness unreliability; also objected (post-trial) to lead detective’s lay testimony about Facebook features and street slang as unendorsed expert testimony. The court rejected these claims and affirmed conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of Facebook printouts | Printouts are authentic records from Facebook and admissible (custodian affidavit; subpoena response; detective testimony about obtaining records). | Printouts not properly authenticated; CRE 902(11)/803(6) inapplicable because Facebook does not "substantially rely" on user content. | Court affirmed admission: sufficient foundation under CRE 901(b) to show records came from Facebook and account linked to Glover; CRE 902(11)/803(6) not strictly satisfied but alternative authentication sufficed. |
| Hearsay — statements in Facebook records | Glover’s Facebook statements are party admissions; other messages admitted only for context. | Facebook entries constitute hearsay and were not admissible under business-records exception. | Held admissible: Glover’s statements admitted against him under CRE 801(d)(2)(A) after preponderance proof of authorship; others admitted as non-hearsay contextual statements. |
| Whether additional corroboration required to attribute social-media messages to user | Prosecution relied on custodian affidavit, subpoena chain, account identifiers, photos, nickname, matching phone number, and witness identifications to link account to Glover. | Argued that more (e.g., direct Facebook employee testimony tying account to defendant’s device) was required because profiles can be faked or hijacked. | Held: corroborating circumstantial evidence (photos, nickname, phone number verified by Facebook, witness IDs) was sufficient under CRE 901(b) to permit jury to find authorship. |
| Detective’s testimony about Facebook features and street slang | Testimony was lay opinion helpful to jury, based on common experience and investigation, not specialized expertise requiring expert endorsement. | Testimony was unendorsed expert testimony and prejudicial. | Held: no plain error; testimony within CRE 701 as lay opinion (features widely known; slang interpreted from context), not specialized expert testimony under CRE 702. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Huehn, 58 P.3d 783 (Colo. App.) (rules for admissibility of computer printouts)
- People v. Crespi, 155 P.3d 570 (Colo. App.) (CRE 901 standard for authentication)
- People v. Bernard, 305 P.3d 433 (Colo. App.) (review for abuse of discretion on authentication)
- People in Interest of R.D.H., 944 P.2d 660 (Colo. App.) (business-records exception and outsider statements)
- United States v. Hassam, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir.) (Facebook records and Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) discussion)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App.) (electronic evidence may be authenticated by various means)
- People v. Quantum, 882 P.2d 1366 (Colo.) (affirmation on alternative grounds is permissible)
- People v. Walford, 716 P.2d 137 (Colo. App.) (identification uncertainty goes to weight, not admissibility)