2023 - Volume 2 - Summer - Flipbook - Page 5
-Q&A: Continued from page 4-
-Social Media: Continued from page 1 -
Q: You were an adjunct professor at Chapman
Law School and Western State College of Law.
What inspired you to pursue teaching alongside
being a judge?
Is Social Media Evidence Relevant?
Like any evidentiary question, the first question is
whether the potential evidence is relevant. California
Evidence Code section 210 defines relevant evidence
to “mean[] evidence, including evidence relevant to
the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any
disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Cal. Evid. Code § 210. Evidence is
relevant if it has some tendency, even a slight tendency, to prove or disprove an issue in the case. See
e.g., People v. Carpenter, Cal.4th 1016, 1048
(1999); see also e.g., Dorth v. Fowler, 588 F. 3d 396,
401 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[A] piece of evidence does not
need to carry a party’s evidentiary burden in order to
be relevant; it simply needs to advance the
ball.”). Asking whether "social media" evidence is
relevant is like generically asking whether
"testimony" is relevant. There is nothing inherent in
social media evidence that provides any special rules
in favor or against a finding of relevancy.
A: I thoroughly enjoyed teaching, especially young
lawyers who are just starting their careers. It’s crucial
to open their eyes to different aspects of the law and
emphasize the importance of being open-minded and
finding their fit.
Teaching is also essential to me because it empowers
young lawyers and students to understand the privilege we have in upholding our democracy and the rule
of law. We must stand strong with our principles and
ensure that we fight for what’s right. With this responsibility, we can make a positive impact on society and
the legal system. It's both a privilege and a duty that
comes with being a lawyer.
Q: What other advice would you give to young
lawyers at the start of their careers?
A: Networking is crucial, even though it may take
some of us out of our comfort zones. As lawyers, we
often get comfortable within our circles of friends and
colleagues. However, stepping outside our comfort
zones opens up numerous networking opportunities
within our legal community. Becoming part of organizations and volunteering can be incredibly rewarding.
It not only helps you connect with new colleagues and
friends but also allows you to learn from others and
gain valuable insights.
Is Social Media Evidence Authentic?
When it comes to authenticating writings or documents (or photographs or recordings), lawyers tend to
make things unnecessarily difficult. Whether it's a
deposition or trial testimony, lawyers tend to think
that laying a foundation for a document requires a
long and tedious windup of meaningless and repetitive
questions. Authenticating documents (social media
documents or otherwise) does not need to be overly
complicated. To understand the simplicity of authentication, it is important to first understand exactly what
authentication means.
Moreover, I encourage young lawyers to be bold and
take action instead of just talking about it. Being willing to step outside the square box and embrace new
challenges can lead to meaningful changes where they
are needed most. Remember, when you join forces
with others, you have the power to make movements
and create positive impacts. So, don’t hesitate to get
involved and make a difference in our legal
community.
The concept of authentication is closely related to
relevance—or, more specifically, conditional relevance. For example, Federal Rule of Evidence 104
states that “[w]hen the relevance of evidence depends
on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist.
The court may admit the proposed evidence on the
condition that the proof be introduced later.”
Yanlin
Cecilia Chen is a Managing
Associate in the Complex Litigation &
Dispute Resolution Group of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
Rule 901, which identifies the requirements to authenticate evidence, includes similar language: “To
satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce
-Continued on page 65
