United States v. Oreckinto

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · 2017 · Evidence

EvidenceAuthenticationRelevanceRule 403Internet evidenceFed. R. Evid. 901Fed. R. Evid. 401Fed. R. Evid. 402

Facts

The Government sought to prove that Andrew Oreckinto was the masked warehouse burglar in part by comparing the burglar's clothing to clothing Oreckinto wore in a separate photograph. Surveillance imagery showed the burglar wearing black upper-body clothing with stylized letters "SP" on the chest, and a Facebook photograph of Oreckinto showed him wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with visible stylized white lettering beneath a jacket. A detective testified that, after seeing the "SP" letters in the surveillance image, he searched the Internet for black-and-white hooded "SP" sweatshirts and found images of a SouthPole brand sweatshirt, which were compiled into Exhibit 201V. The detective did not identify the exact websites or obtain confirmation from a manufacturer, but defense counsel conceded he was not arguing that no such SouthPole brand or sweatshirt existed.

Issue

Whether Internet images of a SouthPole sweatshirt were admissible when the Government offered them only to help the jury visually compare the type of sweatshirt shown in surveillance footage and in a photograph of the defendant. More specifically, the court considered whether the images were sufficiently authenticated under Rule 901, relevant under Rules 401 and 402, and excludable as unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

Rule

Under Rule 901, the proponent need only produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is, and the required proof is context-specific and tied to the purpose for which the evidence is offered. When Internet images are offered merely to show the appearance or existence of a commercially available product for visual comparison, testimony from the person who accessed and retrieved the images can be sufficient; stricter authentication may be required if the images are offered to prove authorship, source, manufacturer identity, dates of manufacture, or where there is reason to suspect fabrication, planting, or manipulation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a robbery trial in Denver, surveillance footage shows the robber wearing a black baseball cap with a distinctive silver mountain logo. To help the jury compare the cap in the footage with a cap worn by Devon Pike in a separate admitted photograph, a detective offers printouts of online images of a commercially sold cap with the same logo. The detective testifies that he searched for the logo online, found the images, and printed them; no one claims the images were altered or that such caps do not exist.

Are the printouts most likely admissible over a Rule 901 authentication objection?

Explanation. Rule 901 asks whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the item is what the proponent claims it is, and the inquiry is purpose-specific. When the proponent offers Internet images merely to show the appearance of an existing, commercially available product for the jury’s visual comparison, testimony from the person who accessed and retrieved the images may suffice. The rule does not require manufacturer testimony or proof ruling out every inconsistent possibility.