228 A.3d 171
Md.2020Background
- Dec. 7, 2015: an attempted armed robbery in Towson; accomplice Claude Mayo was shot and died; Hayes Sample fled and was later identified as a suspect.
- Police obtained Facebook Business Records for two profiles: “SoLo Haze” and “claude.mayo.5.”
- SoLo Haze listed Baltimore, connections to Edmondson‑Westside HS and Towson University, a registered e‑mail mrsample2015@gmail.com, and showed that it unfriended claude.mayo.5 the day after the shooting.
- claude.mayo.5 listed Baltimore, friends including “Shantell Richardson” (Mayo’s mother), contained photos and posts about Mayo’s death, and showed post‑death activity by others.
- At trial the detective testified about the Facebook records; Sample was convicted. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding insufficient authentication that Sample personally unfriended Mayo. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for authenticating social‑media evidence | State: authentication governed by Md. R. 5‑901; adopt "reasonable juror" test; proof need only be preponderance. | Sample: social‑media requires stronger proof (device logs, direct link) to show who performed an action. | Court: applies Sublet’s "reasonable juror" test and holds preponderance (more likely than not) is the standard. |
| Whether SoLo Haze and claude.mayo.5 profiles were sufficiently tied to Sample and Mayo | State: identifying characteristics (name homophone, e‑mail with “sample,” location, school connections, mutual friends) support finding ownership. | Sample: profile creation ≠ proof who used it to take actions; others could have accessed the account. | Court: circumstantial indicia (name/email/location/connections/friend links) made it more likely than not each profile belonged to the named person. |
| Whether evidence showed Sample personally unfriended Mayo | State: ownership plus timing, motive to distance himself, denial to police, cell/surveillance links, and that only Mayo was unfriended among 175 friends support attribution. | Sample: absence of technical/device evidence linking action to him means attribution is speculative. | Court: combination of ownership, temporal proximity, motive, and that only Mayo was unfriended sufficed for a reasonable juror to find by a preponderance that Sample did it. |
| Whether the State had to exclude all alternative explanations (e.g., unauthorized access) | State: not required to eliminate all inconsistent possibilities; those go to weight, not admissibility. | Sample: possibility others accessed accounts undermines authentication. | Court: rejects requirement to rule out all alternatives; Sublet/Vayner standard controls—possibilities go to weight for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632 (2015) (adopted the "reasonable juror" test for authenticating social‑media evidence)
- Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011) (reversed admission where circumstantial indicia were insufficient to authenticate a MySpace printout)
- United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (authentication satisfied if reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity; proponent need not eliminate all inconsistent possibilities)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (under Rule 104(b) jury must be able to reasonably find conditional fact by preponderance)
- United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016) (applied preponderance standard to authenticate Facebook records)