## Facts

- Tiffany Parker and Sheniya Brown fought in Wilmington, Delaware, after conflict arising from Facebook messages about a mutual romantic interest.
- Parker was indicted for second-degree assault and terroristic threatening; she claimed self-defense.
- The State sought to introduce a screenshot of Facebook posts allegedly authored by Parker describing the fight, including a statement that Brown “hit her first,” to rebut self-defense.
- Brown testified she was told about a post on Parker’s Facebook page, then went to Parker’s page, viewed the post, and “shared” it to her own page, where it appeared in the same form as the screenshot offered at trial.
- The Superior Court admitted the posts over objection as sufficiently authenticated under Delaware Rules of Evidence 104 and 901.
- Parker was acquitted of terroristic threatening but convicted of second-degree assault.

## Issues

1. What standard governs authentication of social media posts under Delaware Rules of Evidence 104(b) and 901(a): a heightened, technical/creator-based proof requirement or a flexible standard allowing authentication by any evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find authenticity.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the Facebook posts based on the State’s circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court rejected a heightened authentication requirement for social media evidence and adopted a flexible standard consistent with Rules 104(b) and 901(a).
- The Court held that a trial judge may admit relevant social media evidence when the proponent presents evidence sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable juror that the evidence is what the proponent claims.
- The Court concluded the State’s showing—Brown’s testimony about accessing and sharing the post, plus the posts’ timing/content tied to the altercation—was sufficient for admissibility.
- The Court affirmed Parker’s conviction for second-degree assault.

## Legal Principles

- Under D.R.E. 901(a), authentication requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims.
- Under D.R.E. 104(b), the judge determines only whether a reasonable juror could find authenticity; the jury resolves disputes about authorship, alteration, or falsification.
- Social media evidence is not subject to a special heightened authentication rule solely because it may be susceptible to fabrication; ordinary evidentiary tools (including cross-examination and competing proof) address reliability concerns.
- Circumstantial evidence (context, timing, content, identifying features) and witness testimony about how the content was accessed and preserved can satisfy the prima facie authentication threshold.

## Conclusion

Delaware treats social media posts like other evidence for authentication purposes: if the proponent offers sufficient proof for a reasonable juror to find the posts authentic, the evidence is admissible and any claim of impersonation or falsification is for the jury to evaluate.


Parker v. State, 85 A.3d 682 (Del. 2014)