Source: https://www.jgllaw.com/blog/social-media-evidence-admissible
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:42:29+00:00

Document:
Is that @Social Media Evidence #admissible?
Social media, like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, allow people to connect with friends and family, sharing information, photos, and other life updates. For some, the updates are occasional; for others, social media is a platform to provide others with a minute-by-minute chronicle of their daily lives.
@KrissyK “Woke up late. Running around like crazy. I hate mornings that I can’t seem to get it together #letsgetthisfridaystarted” – via mobile from Laurel, MD at 8:15 a.m.
@KrissyK “Uuuugh, late AND traffic. Finally made it to work. Boss handed it to me AGAIN.” – via web from Greenbelt, MD at 9:30 a.m.
@KrissyK “Lunch can’t come soon enough. Hitting up that Chipotle, ya dig?” – via mobile from Greenbelt, MD at 12:30 p.m.
– via web from Greenbelt, MD at 1:45 p.m.
@KrissyK “So pissed at John right now. I don’t know where he gets off thinking he can act like that.” – via mobile from Greenbelt, MD at 2:30 p.m.
@KrissyK “Finally out of work and ready to get it onnnnn. #girlsnight” – via mobile from Laurel, MD at 6:15 p.m.
 – via mobile from Laurel, MD at 7:30 p.m.
@KrissyK “Gettin faddedddddd at Lux, suckers. #pursebeers”– via mobile from Washington, D.C. at 9:02 p.m.
– via mobile from Washington, D.C. at 9:56 p.m.
@KrissyK “Top shekf for thrsr girkoels. #lovemahgirls” – via mobile from Washington, D.C. at 10:30 p.m.
 – via mobile from Washington, D.C. at 1:30 a.m.
[T]he picture of Ms. Barber, coupled with her birth date and location, were not sufficient ‘distinctive characteristics’ on a MySpace profile to authenticate its printout, given the prospect that someone other than Ms. Barber could have not only created the site, but also posted the ‘snitches get stitches’ comment. The potential for abuse and manipulation of a social networking site by someone other than its purported creator and/or user leads to our conclusion that a printout of an image from such a site requires a greater degree of authentication than merely identifying the date of birth of the creator and her visage in a photograph on the site in order to reflect that Ms. Barber was its creator and the author of the "snitches get stitches" language.
In doing so, the court cautioned that, “we should not be heard to suggest that printouts from social networking sites should never be admitted,” and suggested that proper authentication may come via examination of the purported publisher, examination of internet history, identification of the publishing IP address, or subpoenaing the social media network itself for additional identifying information and indicators of ownership. Although still developing, Maryland courts have indicated that substantial indicators of reliability are required to authenticate and admit social media evidence. With satisfactory evidence that the defendant was in fact the sender, that she created and/or maintains the Twitter handle in question, and that she published the posts in question, her Tweets likely are admissible as evidence against her.
 @KrissyK is not a real person, nor is this Twitter feed real. Any similarities to real persons is purely coincidental.
 Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415, 424 n.3, 966 A.2d 432 (2009).
 Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343, 351, 19 A.3d 415 (2011).
 Dickens v. State, 175 Md. App. 231, 239, 927 A.2d 32 (2007).
 Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).
 Judge Grimm’s comprehensive opinion is an excellent primer on admissibility of various forms of electronically stored information (ESI).
 Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 555-556 (D. Md. 2007), citing Gregory P. Joseph, Internet and Email Evidence, 13 PRAC. LITIGATOR (Mar. 2002), reprinted in 5 STEPHEN A. SALTZBURG ET AL., FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE MANUAL, Part 4 at 20 (9th ed. 2006).
 Griffin v. State, 419 Md.at 357-358.
 Barring, of course, other objections to the evidence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.