United States v. Browne

834 F.3d 403 (3rd Cir. 2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Under the account name “Billy Button,” D began exchanging messages with 18-year-old Nicole Dalmida. They met in person a few months later and then exchanged sexually explicit photographs of themselves through Facebook chats. D then threatened to publish Dalmida's photos online unless Dalmida engaged in oral sex. D promised to delete the photos only if she provided him the password to her Facebook account. Using Dalmida's account, D made contact with T.P. (12 years old), A.M. (15 years old), J.B. (15 years old), and J.S. (17 years old). D solicited explicit photos from them. With the photos, he repeated the pattern by threatening all of them with the public exposure of their images unless they agreed to engage in various sexual acts and sent additional explicit photos of themselves to D's Button Facebook account or to his phone number (the 998 number). D arranged to meet with three of the minors and sexually assaulted one. DHS arrested D and executed a search warrant on his residence. they seized a cell phone that matched the 998 number and from which text messages and photos of the minors were recovered. D admitted the 998 number and phone belonged to him. DHS executed a search warrant on the Button Facebook account, which D also admitted belonged to him, and Facebook provided five sets of chats and a certificate of authenticity executed by its records custodian. The District Court admitted the chat logs and certificate of authenticity into evidence. Four of the chats involved communications between the Billy Button account and, Dalmida, J.B., J.S., and T.P. The fifth chat did not involve Button's account and took place between Dalmida and J.B., on the subject of D's sexual assault of J.B. The certificate stated, in accordance with Rule 902(11) that the records met the business records requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C). D was convicted and appealed. D argues that the Facebook records were not properly authenticated because the P failed to establish that he was the person who authored the communications. D contends that no witness identified the Facebook chat logs on the stand; nothing in the contents of the messages was uniquely known to D; and D was not the only individual with access to the Button account or the 998 number. P claims the records are self-authenticating business records under Rule 902(11) by way of a certificate from Facebook's records custodian. P claims the Facebook custodian certified the logs and that such logs were made and kept by Facebook as a part of its regular business practices. P contends the records were self-authenticating.