Recently in Admissibility of Evidence Category

January 7, 2013

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That No Interception Occurred Where Police Read and Replied to Defendant's Text Messages

899402_you_have_mail.jpgWhen it comes to wiretapping, Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state--meaning both parties to a conversation must consent before a wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted for the interception to be lawful. Although there are exceptions available, sometimes the "two-party" requirement in the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act ("Wiretap Act") presents difficult issues for law enforcement. But in order for the Wiretap Act to even apply, there must be an interception of a communication. In Commonwealth v. Cruttenden, decided on December 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which an interception occurs.

Cruttenden started out as an ordinary car stop along interstate 80 in Clearfield County. After the Pennsylvania State Troopers obtained consent to search the car, they found 35 pounds of marijuana, methamphetamines, drug paraphernalia, a .45 caliber handgun, and a cell phone. One of the car's occupants told the troopers that he had been using the cell phone to text one of the two defendants concerning an exchange of the marijuana for $19,000. The trooper, posing as the supplier, used the phone to text that defendant, and a meeting was set up. The two defendants arrived at the meeting place to conduct the transaction and were arrested. Both defendants were charged with attempt and conspiracy, and both filed motions to suppress the texts, claiming that the texts had been unlawfully intercepted under the Wiretap Act.

The trial granted the suppression motion. On appeal to the Superior Court, the Commonwealth argued that under a Superior Court case called Commonwealth v. Proetto, no interception had taken place and therefore the Wiretap Act did not apply. The Superior Court disagreed and affirmed the suppression order.
In Proetto, an officer, posing as an underage female, communicated with a suspected sexual offender in an Internet chat room using the screen name "Kelly15F." The Superior Court held that because the officer was a direct party to the conversation in the chat room, there was no interception and the Wiretap Act did not apply. But in Cruttenden, the Superior Court distinguished Proetto, on the basis that in the chat room the officer, rather than posing as an actual person, created an entirely separate computer profile, misrepresenting himself as a fictional person, "Kelly15F," while in Cruttenden the officer misrepresented himself as the intended recipient of the communication, namely the defendant's drug supplier. In effect, the Superior Court seemed to be saying, "if you pose as the intended recipient, as opposed to creating a totally separate identity, you have intercepted the communication and the Wiretap Act is violated."

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the Superior Court, calling the respective factual circumstances in the two cases "distinctions without a difference." It does not matter, the Supreme Court held, who the intended recipient of the communication is--"the fact which takes the case out of the purview of the Act is that [the defendant] elected to communicate with the person answering the call and that the communication was direct. Therefore, there was no eavesdropping or listening in, and no interception took place."

The effect of the Cruttenden decision is significant, particularly given the ease with which people today text each other. Any time a person texts, he or she is taking a risk that the person on the other end is a police officer. In Cruttenden, the defendant involved in the texts was suspicious and texted questions that only his drug supplier would know. When he got the right answers, he thought he was in the clear and proceeded to set up the rendezvous spot. What he didn't know was that his supplier was feeding the trooper the answers. After Cruttenden, the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act will not save the casual texter.

November 8, 2012

Internal Investigations and Attorney-Client Privilege: CAVEAT SPEAKER

592542_businessman_walking.jpgJoseph M. Elles, Carter's Inc.'s former Vice President of Sales, is facing federal criminal charges alleging that he aided Carter's in misstating its income in various Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The case is United States v. Elles, No. 1:11-CR-445 (N.D. Ga). Elles has objected to the government's attempts to introduce into evidence statements that he made to attorneys conducting an internal investigation for Carter's. (See U.S. v. Elles Response in Opposition to Motion to Admit Defendant's Statements.pdf) The government contends that Elles admitted his guilt during the course of a seven hour interview with counsel that conducted the internal investigation. Elles disagrees, arguing that his statements are "a far cry from the elements necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as alleged."

Elles raises several arguments why his statements should not be admitted. First, he claims that his cooperation with the internal investigation was coerced because Carter's said it would withhold his severance payments if he did not participate. He also attacked counsel's motives, calling them "former SEC and AUSA attorneys [who] were working hand in glove with prosecutors." As proof of this collusion, Elles pointed out that Carter's immediately waived privilege and turned over his interview to the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office the day after the interview was conducted. Elles also argues that if the portion of the interview that the government seeks to introduce is allowed, that he should be allowed to introduce other portions of his interview (which was summarized by counsel in a 33 page memorandum) and to cross examine the attorneys who conducted the interview to explain the context of his statements and to demonstrate that, as Vice President of Sales, he was not responsible for deciding how "accounting issues" were to be reported on financial statements.

Mr. Elles' co-defendant, Carter's former President, Joseph Pacifica, has similarly objected to the admission of statements he made to counsel during Carter's internal investigation.

This case highlights a critical dynamic concerning internal corporate investigations. Corporate employees who cooperate in such investigations do so at their own peril. The corporation will ultimately decide whether to assert or to waive privilege. And where, as here, the corporation decides to waive privilege, an individual employee who is incriminated by information over which privilege is waived has little recourse or ability to stop the damage. Our rule, therefore, for corporate employees deciding whether to participate in an internal investigation is caveat speaker.

September 30, 2012

Excluding Evidence Under Rule 403--Is a Video Worth a Thousand Words?

683635_remote_control_1.jpgIs a video ever worth a thousand words? More to the point for this post, can a court commit error by failing to view videos offered by the prosecution before allowing the jury to see them? In a decision issued on September 18, the Third Circuit says yes.

In United States v. Cunningham, a case that originated from the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit vacated the defendant's conviction and granted him a new trial because the trial court had allowed the jury to see videos after accepting the prosecution's description of the videos rather than actually viewing them. This, the appeals court panel unanimously ruled, was an abuse of discretion.

What kind of videos are we talking about? Graphic depictions of adults molesting prepubescent children, including, in the court's words, "the kind of highly reprehensible and offensive content that might lead a jury to convict because it thinks that the defendant is a bad person and deserves punishment, regardless of whether the defendant committed the charged crime."

Continue reading after the jump.

Continue reading "Excluding Evidence Under Rule 403--Is a Video Worth a Thousand Words?" »

September 14, 2012

Recent Ninth Circuit Decision Further Muddles Treatment of AWCs

by Robert Vaughan Cornish, Jr.

836705_wallstreetbroadway.jpgEntities and individuals subject to discipline or review by the SEC, CFTC or self-regulatory organizations such as FINRA or the NFA are sometimes faced with the classic Hobson's Choice of settling allegations of misconduct under what is called an "Acceptance Waiver & Consent" or AWC. Notwithstanding one's desire to settle such matters and the truth regarding such allegations, AWCs often recite the facts as they were originally pled or recited by the regulatory body in its original submission that commenced the proceedings. These AWCs tend to find their way into related civil litigation, whether in court, arbitration or before other administrative bodies, for a variety of purposes. AWCs have been submitted as evidence of prior conduct, knowledge of prior conduct or the proclivity to engage in similar conduct.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Bailey, No. 11-50132 (9th Cir., August 27, 2012), addressed the admissibility of AWCs in criminal proceedings and determined that AWCs are not admissible to demonstrate intent and knowledge of wrongful conduct. In Bailey, the SEC sought to introduce an AWC concerning violations of federal securities laws as evidence of knowledge of the defendant's criminal conduct. The District Court below permitted the AWC to be admitted into evidence at the defendant's trial for criminal violations of federal securities laws. The defendant was convicted and subsequently appealed, arguing that the admission of the AWC was prejudicial. The Ninth Circuit agreed. Of particular importance was the Court's recitation as to why AWCs should generally not be admitted as evidence of knowledge of wrongful conduct:

A defendant may settle a case for a variety of reasons. He may have committed the conduct alleged in the complaint [upon which the AWC is based] or he may not have - but having settled the claim, there is no way to know. Admitting prior conduct charged but settled with no admission of liability is not probative of whether defendant committed the prior conduct, much less whether he committed the conduct in question. There is no logical relevancy to admitting this type of evidence.

This post continues after the jump.

Continue reading "Recent Ninth Circuit Decision Further Muddles Treatment of AWCs" »

May 18, 2012

WHOSE TEXT IS IT ANYWAY?

899402_you_have_mail.jpgIn a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to decide the issue of admissibility of text messages. In Commonwealth v. Koch, the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office offered into evidence text messages from the defendant's cell phone that contained drug-related communications. The defense argued that the government had not properly authenticated the messages; the government said it was enough that the phone was found among other evidence of drug trafficking. A unanimous panel of the Superior Court agreed with the defense and granted the defendant a new trial.

So if ownership of the cell phone is not enough, what types of evidence can the prosecution offer to authenticate text messages? Rule 901 of the Pa. Rules of Evidence is not very helpful: "authentication ... is satisfied by... evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." The Superior Court in Koch held that absent direct evidence, such as a witness to the defendant typing and sending the text message, "circumstantial evidence, which tends to corroborate the identity of the sender, is required." In one Pennsylvania federal prosecution involving threats by letter, the prosecution authenticated the letters by showing distinctive patterns in the words the defendant used. But finding such patterns in the informal world of text messaging could prove challenging.