Murder in Maryland, where evidence of the MySpace profile (friend of the defendants tried to intimidate witnesses). The police visited the profile and press, but the prosecutors have nothing else to your MySpace profile and comments were true and authentication on the site provided by supervisors. lower court, said ok, but when the discussion Venkat Balasubramaniam Maryland Supreme Court has said that only a MySpace profile gives the floor and the judges are not sufficient to demonstrate that the content depends on the person.
The judge also cited the famous case of Lori Drew, indicating that it is easy to create fake profiles of people. In fact, the court shall issue a simple question: If the authentication, the social networking site like some people, there are several ways to do this, first ask the person to your website. Interestingly, the prosecutors in this case in history.
I must confess a bit 'of difference in this case, as described by Venkat :
Two different judges accused the majority of the least is that the evidence could be called into question the faith, technology, terrible, and notes that the important question of whether a reasonable juror. In other cases, where doubt is cast on the test of authenticity, it is common practice to call the jury to do, unless the Court finds that no reasonable juror could find no concrete evidence. Most judges do not agree, because the same procedure in this case.
I do not like something terrible technology. If anything, the opposite is true. I must admit that (1) these tests are easy to forge, and (2) there are some simple steps to verify the evidence. In such cases, murder is not a sufficient condition for proof of this is true is that?
The judge also cited the famous case of Lori Drew, indicating that it is easy to create fake profiles of people. In fact, the court shall issue a simple question: If the authentication, the social networking site like some people, there are several ways to do this, first ask the person to your website. Interestingly, the prosecutors in this case in history.
I must confess a bit 'of difference in this case, as described by Venkat :
Two different judges accused the majority of the least is that the evidence could be called into question the faith, technology, terrible, and notes that the important question of whether a reasonable juror. In other cases, where doubt is cast on the test of authenticity, it is common practice to call the jury to do, unless the Court finds that no reasonable juror could find no concrete evidence. Most judges do not agree, because the same procedure in this case.
I do not like something terrible technology. If anything, the opposite is true. I must admit that (1) these tests are easy to forge, and (2) there are some simple steps to verify the evidence. In such cases, murder is not a sufficient condition for proof of this is true is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment