MICHAEL E. DONATI v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Graeff, Filed Jan. 29, 2014,
E-mail Authentication- E-mail was authenticated where a list of e-mail addresses related to the same pattern of harassment was located in defendant’s house, e-mails were found on defendant’s computer, and were consistent with defendant’s actions.
Read this case. Specifically, read the facts for this case. Then find Mr. Donati and send him to Hollywood to write Oceans 14.
Mr. Donati was tossed out of a bar for trying to sell weed, then began a campaign to frame the security staff of the bar as weed growers themselves. Through a variety of clever monikers such as “mrtpstr83@gmail.com,” “weedlocator@hotmail.com,” and “barsecurity12345@gmail.com” (“pleasuredaddy123456@gmail.com” was less thematic, but thrown in for good measure), Donati attempted to trick the police and the bar owner into thinking that various individuals were using the bar to sell marijuana and that marijuana was being grown by them in a nearby park.
Notes from the case on Authentication of E-mails:
By Direct Evidence-
– Authenticated by testimony by someone with personal knowledge that the evidence is what it is claimed to be (an e-mail sent to or from a particular person)
– The proponent could admit the e-mail through the testimony of the author of the e-mail or a person who saw the author compose and send the
e-mail.
By Circumstantial Evidence-
– Authenticated by circumstantial evidence that allows a finder of fact to determine that the e-mails are what the proponent claims them to be.
– Example 1: forensic evidence connecting a computer to an internet address for the computer from which the e-mails were sent
– Example 2: an e-mail reference to the author with the defendant’s nickname, where the context of the e-mail revealed details that only the defendant would
know, and where the defendant called soon after the receipt of the e-mail, making the same requests that were made in the e-mail
Other notes from the case:
– E-mail Harassment- Prior to the 2012 amendment making the course of conduct a crime, the unit of prosecution for 3-805 was each individual e-mail
– Closing Argument- Counsel is not permitted to state and comment upon facts not in evidence or invite the jury to do so
– Voice Identification- 5 factors in determining reliability: (1) the ability of the witness to hear the assailant speak, (2) the witness’s degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of any prior identifications the witness made, (4) the period of time between the incident and the identification, and (5) how certain the witness was in making the identification.