United States v. Tony Browne
65 V.I. 425
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Browne (using Facebook account “Billy Button” and a phone number “998”) exchanged sexual messages and coerced minors into sending explicit photos; victims identified photos recovered from Browne’s seized phone.
- DHS seized Browne’s phone and obtained Facebook chat logs and a certificate of authenticity from Facebook’s records custodian after executing search warrants; five chat logs were produced (four involving Button).
- At trial the district court admitted the five Facebook chat logs and Facebook’s certificate over defense objection; Browne was convicted on multiple counts including production and receipt of child pornography and coercion/enticement.
- Browne appealed, arguing the chat logs were not properly authenticated as to his authorship and that one chat (between two victims) was inadmissible hearsay.
- The Third Circuit evaluated whether social‑media chat logs are self‑authenticating business records under Fed. R. Evid. 902(11)/803(6), and if not, whether extrinsic evidence under Rule 901 sufficed to authenticate the logs.
Issues
| Issue | Browne’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook chat logs are self‑authenticating business records under Fed. R. Evid. 902(11)/803(6) | Facebook certificate insufficient to prove Browne authored messages; contents require independent linkage | Facebook’s records custodian certificate makes logs self‑authenticating under Rule 902(11) | No — chat contents, in full, are not business records for Rule 803(6) purposes and thus not self‑authenticating under Rule 902(11) |
| Whether the Government provided sufficient extrinsic evidence to authenticate the chat logs under Fed. R. Evid. 901 | Authentication failed because witnesses did not identify the logs on the stand and others had access to account/phone | Multiple circumstantial and direct links (victim testimony, identifications, admissions, recovered phone/photos, profile details, Facebook production) establish authorship | Yes — abundant extrinsic evidence allowed a jury to find authorship by a preponderance under Rule 901 |
| Whether the chat logs were inadmissible hearsay | Some logs (esp. the Dalmida–J.B. chat) assert facts about the assault and are hearsay not covered by exceptions | Four logs are admissions by a party‑opponent; victim statements are contextual, not offered for truth | Mixed — four logs admitted as party admissions; the single victim–victim chat was hearsay and admission was error but harmless given duplicative testimony |
| Whether erroneous admission of the one hearsay chat requires reversal | Admission of that chat prejudiced the verdict | Any error was harmless due to overwhelming admissible evidence | No reversal — error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under non‑constitutional harmless‑error standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 718 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard for district court review and residual hearsay framework)
- United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 1993) (interpretation of Rule 803(6) business records)
- United States v. Rawlins, 606 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 2010) (authenticity and relevance relationship)
- United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396 (3d Cir. 1994) (circumstantial authentication evidence for telegraphic records)
- United States v. Bergrin, 682 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2012) (Rule 104(b) preponderance standard for authentication)
- United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (insufficient authentication of social‑media profile absent link to defendant)
- United States v. Barnes, 803 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2015) (sufficient Facebook authentication through witness recognition and style)
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2014) (authentication via IP tracing and account linkage)
- United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1992) (circumstantial evidence can establish authorship)
- United States v. Furst, 886 F.2d 558 (3d Cir. 1989) (limits of admitting records as business records when custodians lack knowledge of substantive accuracy)
- United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627 (9th Cir. 2000) (authentication supported where co‑conspirators identified meetings arranged via screen name)
- United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 1998) (computer printouts can be authenticated via corroborating physical evidence)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (preponderance standard for Rule 104(b) foundation)