Opinion ID: 2758259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facebook Messages

Text: At trial, the prosecution offered Facebook messages written by “Twinchee Vanto.” The prosecution argued that “Twinchee Vanto” was a fake name used by Mr. Brinson. Mr. Brinson challenges this argument, insisting that he did not write the Facebook messages. 3 We reject this challenge and hold that the district court reasonably concluded that the prosecution had proven authorship by a preponderance of the evidence.
A statement is not considered “hearsay” if it is offered against a party and is the party’s own statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Proponents of the evidence need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the opposing party had made the statement. See United 3 Mr. Brinson also asserts that the documents “do not meet the criteria for reliability and authentication.” See Mr. Brinson’s Opening Br. at 46. But, Mr. Brinson does not sufficiently develop this argument. Thus, we deem this argument waived. See United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating that “arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived”) (quoting Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998)). 10 States v. Lang, 364 F.3d 1210, 1222 (10th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1108 (2005). To link Mr. Brinson to the messages, the government had to show by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Brinson was “Twinchee Vanto.” The prosecution sufficiently established that link through five facts: 1. The “Twinchee Vanto” account was registered to an email address: “tarranb@yahoo.com.” 2. “Twinchee Vanto” identified himself in one message as “Tarran.” 3. A witness testified that “Twinchee Vanto” had identified himself as “Tarran.” 4. A phone number on the bill of sale for Mr. Brinson’s SUV matched the number that “Twinchee Vanto” had given as a contact number. 5. Two witnesses testified that “Twinchee Vanto” was Mr. Brinson’s “Facebook name” and that Mr. Brinson was known as “Twin.” V-VI Aplt. App. at 979, 1073, 1121-31. Mr. Brinson presented evidence that other individuals had access to the Facebook account and had posted messages. But the district court could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Brinson had authored the messages. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987). Therefore, the district court properly admitted the Facebook messages as statements of a party opponent. 11
Because the messages did not constitute “hearsay,” their introduction did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 182.