id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 1
400
| source
stringclasses 10
values |
|---|---|---|
5cb6b3f5-7756-4cc9-9d2c-c8fc4a16f35c | . UNDULY MANIPULATIVE OR INTRUSIVE ADVERTISEMENTS A lawyer may not engage in unduly manipulative or intrusive advertisements | In_Re:_Amendments_2024-08-29.txt |
2e1194b4-e616-412c-95ba-9b5efce91d0a | . An advertisement is unduly manipulative if it: (a) –(b) [No Change] (c) contains the voice or image of a celebrity, except that a lawyer may use the: (1) voice or image of a local announcer, disc jockey or radio personality who regularly records advertisements so long as the person recording the announcement does not endorse or offer a testimonial on behalf of the advertising lawyer or law firm, | In_Re:_Amendments_2024-08-29.txt |
5df1d3d0-5cd7-4964-afc0-ff55e0c12af9 | or (2) testimonial of a celebrity who is a current or former client if the testimonial complies with the requirements of this subchapter; or - 17 - (d) [No change] Comment Unduly Mmanipulative Ssounds and Iimages [No Change] Use of Ccelebrities A lawyer or law firm advertisement may not contain the voice or image of a celebrity with limited exceptions | In_Re:_Amendments_2024-08-29.txt |
6944a042-1526-4fcd-a6a8-f201853ffde4 | . A celebrity is an individual who is known to the target audience and whose voice or image is recognizable to the intended audience. A person can be a celebrity on a regional or local level, not just a national level. Local announcers or disc jockeys and radio personalities are regularly used to record advertisements | In_Re:_Amendments_2024-08-29.txt |
cc3544ab-ed1e-4639-938c-34264cba6940 | . Use of a local announcer or disc jockey or a radio personality to record an advertisement is permissible under this rule as long as the person recording the announcement does not endorse or offer a testimonial on behalf of the advertising lawyer or law firm | In_Re:_Amendments_2024-08-29.txt |
4f9d8971-b598-48a1-b33a-ad9859286cee | . Additionally, an advertisement may include the testimonial of a celebrity who is a current or former client of the advertising lawyer or law firm if the testimonial complies with all other applicable requirements of this subchapter. | In_Re:_Amendments_2024-08-29.txt |
917f2dd1-7ec4-4ae7-9ebb-bc035fd8d211 | Christopher Mooney v. State of Maryland, No. 32, September Term, 2023 “REASONABLE JUROR” TEST – AUTHENTICATION THROUGH TESTIMONY OF WITNESS WITH KNOWLEDGE UNDER MARYLAND RULE 5-901(b)(1) – AUTHENTICATION THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNDER MARYLAND RULE 5-901(b)(4) – Supreme Court of Maryland held that “reasonable juror” test applies to authentication of videos—i.e | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
a99829fc-c7fb-49e4-a96d-99fb1285c792 | ., for trial court to admit video, there must be sufficient evidence for reasonable juror to find by preponderance of evidence that video is what it is claimed to be. Supreme Court concluded that video can be authenticated through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
e4ff96ec-3d42-4d05-8fef-9292aaac4e01 | . Supreme Court held that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting video, as video was properly authenticated through combination of testimony of witness with knowledge under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1) and circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5- 901(b)(4), and reasonable juror could find by preponderance of evidence that video was what it purported to be—namely, fair and | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
e0ac53ca-2b9a-4135-a1fb-0021f0e6833e | accurate video of shooting and events surrounding it | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
790984c8-b31f-494e-aa42-cb802450700b | . Supreme Court concluded that portions of video depicting events that victim saw or participated in were properly authenticated through victim’s testimony under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1), as witness with knowledge of events; and portion of video depicting shooting (which victim did not see) was properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), as there was | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
1644208e-d7d5-4281-ac57-56340ada4290 | circumstantial evidence from which reasonable juror could have inferred that video fairly and accurately depicted shooting | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
c0a53411-ac11-45ef-9923-79799b58d16a | . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 32 September Term, 2023 ______________________________________ CHRISTOPHER MOONEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________ Fader, C.J. Watts Booth Biran Gould Eaves Hotten, Michele D. (Senior Justice, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. Fader, C.J., concurs. Gould, J., dissents | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
34749969-967b-4ad0-852f-40d499ca834a | . ______________________________________ Filed: August 13, 2024 Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 121280030 Argued: June 3, 2024 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Gregory Hilton, Clerk 2024.08 | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
bffc6807-49d1-47e7-8c63-493820013c04 | .13 09:43:15 -04'00' In this case, we must determine whether video footage can be authenticated through circumstantial evidence rather than by methods that have been described as the “pictorial testimony” or the “silent witness” theories of authentication, which require testimony by a witness with personal knowledge of the content of the video or testimony concerning the method of production of | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
cca8bd28-4e15-4222-b57a-3d89e8eb9f70 | the video, respectively | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
2da2b8d7-6e26-4ad9-a519-8dea4b35cffe | . More specifically, the question in this case is whether video footage was properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence where a witness who testified about the content of the video did not have personal knowledge of all of the events depicted in the video | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
270e5ded-d595-47c0-8e2b-32edfa62434b | . In addition, we must determine whether the “reasonable juror” test—under which there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find in favor of authentication by a preponderance of the evidence— applies to authentication of videos. See State v. Sample, 468 Md. 560, 597, 228 A.3d 171, 194 (2020) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
2b3f56b8-a0de-46e9-92fe-3de3c18f858c | . Maryland Rule 5-901(a) provides that “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Maryland Rule 5-901(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of ways to authenticate evidence | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
5064cb88-2717-4581-9c1e-c9d12e682009 | . Under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1), evidence can be authenticated through the testimony of a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what it is claimed to be | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
07c5c92c-ac7d-4eca-b5b4-ee51c1135a46 | . Under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), evidence can be authenticated through “[c]ircumstantial evidence, such as appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, location, or other distinctive characteristics, that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be.” We have previously discussed three theories of authentication for videos. See Dep’t - 2 - of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Cole, 342 Md | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
8b553ebc-2a4a-4d67-99a9-22665be24508 | . 12, 20-21, 30, 672 A.2d 1115, 1119-20, 1124 (1996). First, under the “pictorial testimony” theory of authentication, a video can be authenticated where a “witness testifies from first-hand knowledge that the [video] fairly and accurately represents the scene or object it purports to depict as it existed at the relevant time.” Id. at 20-21, 672 A.2d at 1119 (cleaned up) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
1619581e-7abd-4214-af7e-c194bd6d41e1 | . The “pictorial testimony” theory of authentication corresponds to Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1). Second, under the “silent witness” theory of authentication, a video can be authenticated where there is “an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy of the process producing” the video. Cole, 342 Md. at 21, 672 A.2d at 1119-20 (cleaned up) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
dad5b8f6-6623-4b5d-9fce-67156c553e4d | . Such a foundation can be laid where, for instance, a witness testifies about “the type of equipment or camera used, its general reliability, the quality of the recorded product, the process by which it was focused, or the general reliability of the entire system.” Jackson v. State, 460 Md. 107, 117, 188 A.3d 975, 981 (2018) (cleaned up) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
d103cf55-47fc-4b6b-bfd9-9076e691e98b | . The “silent witness” theory of authentication corresponds to Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(9), under which an exhibit can be authenticated through “[e]vidence describing a process or system used to produce the proffered exhibit or testimony and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.”1 1We have also explained that a video can be authenticated as a business record | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
19bdb0c8-1a54-4901-85c4-88cac46a1b92 | . See Cole, 342 Md. at 30, 672 A.2d at 1124. This theory of authentication corresponds to Maryland Rule 5-902(12), under which an exhibit is considered self-authenticating where, among other conditions, the exhibit satisfies the requirements for the “business record” hearsay exception under Maryland Rule 5-803(b)(6) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
0a99d5ff-ae4e-46f3-b53f-f72f6592efe2 | . One of those requirements is establishing that “the regular practice of [the] business was to make and keep the” exhibit. Md. R. 5-803(b)(6)(D) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
97ae6392-ebd9-48ee-87f2-4387db9f5f35 | . - 3 - In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, after a trial by jury, Petitioner, Christopher Mooney, was found guilty of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, possession of a regulated firearm after conviction of a disqualifying crime, wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, illegal possession of ammunition, and discharging a firearm in Baltimore City | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
f230c92c-cbfa-428b-ab02-0a4df302f9d4 | . The events underlying the verdict involved the nonfatal shooting of Joshua Zimmerman in his vehicle outside of a medical cannabis dispensary in Baltimore City. As a witness for the State, Mr. Zimmerman testified that he was shot in the back while sitting in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. Over objection, during Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
510aca81-4ba5-47fd-9184-e461b61ec4c9 | . Zimmerman’s direct examination, the circuit court admitted into evidence a video, retrieved by a detective, that had been recorded by a camera mounted on the exterior wall of a residence near the site of the shooting.2 The video was 1 minute and 51 seconds long. Before admission of the video, Mr. Zimmerman testified that, in the months prior to the shooting, he had suspected Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
bb7a1936-9c3f-40fe-95c8-6874e8de8bc0 | . Mooney of sleeping with his girlfriend, but Mr. Mooney had denied the allegation. Mr. Zimmerman testified that, on the night of the shooting, Mr. Mooney walked past his vehicle and the two had a brief exchange of words in which he called Mr. Mooney a “b[****].” Mr. Zimmerman testified that Mr. Mooney walked past his vehicle immediately before the shooting and that, after Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
434ee125-483d-43f0-9f6a-2c6257ffa2ec | . Mooney passed the vehicle, he was shot from behind. Mr. Zimmerman did not testify that he saw the shooter at the time of the shooting. 2In his brief in this Court, Mr. Mooney states that “[t]he incident was purportedly captured on a ‘Ring’ camera from a nearby residence and a copy of the video was recovered by police.” The video itself displays the Xfinity logo in the upper-right corner | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
137deb70-3b63-46bc-849a-c3dbfb9295dd | . - 4 - Mr. Zimmerman testified that he had watched the video in preparation for trial and that the video was a true and accurate depiction of the events that occurred on the night of the shooting and did not appear to have been altered or edited. After the video was admitted into evidence, Mr. Zimmerman identified Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
fb805f1f-abea-42a9-b81d-b5e6e1272581 | . Mooney as the person depicted on the video in the white shirt “walking around” and confirmed that the footage depicted him exiting the vehicle holding his back, because that is where he was shot, and running to a nearby McDonald’s. During the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor contended that the video showed Mr. Mooney walk past Mr. Zimmerman’s vehicle and shoot him from behind | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
7ceb0c6d-5171-4cd0-85b5-24d7bfdf9525 | . In this Court, Mr. Mooney contends that, although the methods of authentication listed in Maryland Rule 5-901(b) are non exhaustive, none of the methods are universally applicable. Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
ebabb363-f024-4532-bb01-342ef6625897 | . Mooney asserts that the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in concluding that video evidence could be authenticated through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) and that this Court’s holding in Sample, 468 Md. at 567-68, 228 A.3d at 176, and the “reasonable juror” test do not apply to authentication of video evidence. Mr. Mooney’s position is that our decision in Washington v | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
f223560b-67eb-47a3-8583-031f72c8cf7c | . State, 406 Md. 642, 652, 961 A | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
96e84ecd-a523-4a7b-bcf2-762fa392c418 | .2d 1110, 1116 (2008), stands for the proposition that video footage can be authenticated under only two methods, which he summarizes as follows: the “pictorial testimony” theory, which “requires a human being to be able to swear they personally perceived what the photograph portrayed[,]” and the “silent witness” theory, under which “a witness can speak to the reliability and authenticity of the | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
c1d1d3d5-826a-4939-a0ed-bb2fca454af1 | system used to procure the video, thus permitting the video to speak for itself | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
9e912be0-a33d-47bc-9e01-8ae648a8ee33 | .” (Cleaned up). The State responds that the “pictorial testimony” and “silent witness” methods of - 5 - authentication are not the exclusive ways to authenticate video footage. The State argues that “the authentication rule requires only that a ‘reasonable juror’ could find that a particular item is what the proponent claims it to be | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
28966e7f-bdc3-4975-ae8c-bcae80a25b4b | .” The State maintains that a variety of cases from federal and other State courts, as well as decisions of the Appellate Court, permit authorization of video footage by means that include circumstantial evidence | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
375feea9-7b8b-42b3-a598-7be66b9460b2 | . We hold that, for video footage to be admissible, as with other evidence, there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the video is what it is claimed to be. In other words, the “reasonable juror” test applies to authentication of videos—i.e | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
53a268fc-b097-4fb4-8886-74f059f592e3 | ., for a trial court to admit a video, there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find more likely than not that the evidence is what it is purported to be. In addition, we hold that, like other evidence, video footage can be authenticated in a variety of ways, including through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
3d895543-0e93-498a-8f15-af397f6b5296 | . We conclude that the video footage at issue in this case was properly authenticated through a combination of the testimony of a witness with knowledge under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1) and circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), as a reasonable juror could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that the video was what it purported to be—namely, a fair and accurate depiction | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
a353d938-b227-4850-8d1d-fc7cca21281a | of Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
7dd76703-54ae-4bcf-8850-addcf1804ecf | . Zimmerman’s shooting and the events occurring before and after it. The parts of the video depicting the events that Mr. Zimmerman saw, or participated in, before and after the shooting were properly authenticated through his testimony under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1) as a witness with personal knowledge of the events | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
0406a50a-5545-499e-8afe-fb7206378704 | . - 6 - The part of the video depicting the shooting was properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), as there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could have inferred that the video fairly and accurately depicted the shooting | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
05b61b9a-32df-4170-8121-2cfdded88f9a | . The close temporal proximity of the shooting to the events occurring immediately before and after the shooting, of which Mr. Zimmerman had personal knowledge, gave rise to the reasonable inference that the video accurately depicted the shooting. In addition, Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
bd26c74d-4bb9-47f9-9502-5e2ba20b6dbe | . Zimmerman testified that the video truthfully and accurately depicted the events that he saw and did not appear to have been edited or altered | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
58c0c460-0e27-4b5d-a753-9bc30e7e38fb | . There also was evidence of the nature and origin of the video, from which a reasonable juror could have inferred that the video was recorded the night of the shooting by a source or third party not connected to law enforcement or involved with the shooting, as a detective testified that he obtained the video from an individual who lived nearby and had a camera mounted on the exterior wall of his | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
0524683b-9bb1-4b1d-9abe-5354f1e1fba2 | residence | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
69cc6ce4-fa5d-43a9-bde8-587d159d089b | . These circumstances are not intended to be exhaustive or all inclusive of the circumstances that may permit authentication of video footage under Maryland Rule 5- 901(b)(4). The authentication of video footage involves a fact-specific inquiry that will vary from case to case | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
6bd3fa18-7afb-4392-bfe3-5385500b8cbe | . As with all determinations with respect to authentication under Maryland Rule 5-901(b), a trial court must assess on a case-by-case basis whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude more likely than not that video footage is what the proponent claims it to be | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
d54c1280-cb26-4f22-9164-5d70d68d3325 | . For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court of - 7 - Maryland. BACKGROUND Proceedings in the Circuit Court The State charged Mr. Mooney with multiple offenses, including attempted first- degree murder of Mr. Zimmerman. At trial, as a witness for the State, Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
dc2f4c12-6767-456f-a11d-589539ac896b | . Zimmerman testified as follows. He and Mr. Mooney met each other at least approximately a decade before trial. Sometime during the summer of 2021, Mr. Zimmerman asked Mr. Mooney whether he and Mr. Zimmerman’s girlfriend, who is also the mother of Mr. Zimmerman’s child, were “sleeping around.” Mr. Mooney responded that they were not, which Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
e734da44-5a60-44e7-b79c-d89ac9e058c8 | . Zimmerman believed to be a lie because his girlfriend later admitted that she and Mr. Mooney were sleeping together. On the evening of September 3, 2021, around 8:30 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., Mr. Zimmerman purchased medical cannabis from a dispensary on Falls Road in the Hampden neighborhood of Baltimore City. Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
42cc7d1a-f7f0-4244-a920-ec2e1091cbfb | . Zimmerman returned to his vehicle, which was parked on Falls Road, and telephoned his girlfriend. Within a few minutes of finishing the call, Mr. Zimmerman saw Mr. Mooney walking down the street toward him. The area had lights. Mr. Zimmerman had the windows of his vehicle rolled down, and nothing was obstructing his view of Mr. Mooney, who was not wearing a face mask. Mr. Mooney asked Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
e3df51bd-9c50-4817-9c36-ff75a0abd74b | . Zimmerman: “[W]hat’s up[?]” Mr. Zimmerman responded: “[Y]ou’re a b[****.]” Mr. Mooney “slowed down, like he was about to say something.” But, instead of saying anything, Mr. Mooney kept walking until he was out of Mr. Zimmerman’s sight. Mr. Zimmerman thought that Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
347d266c-ecfb-46fe-be69-664ec5718c3e | . Mooney was going to approach the driver’s side of his - 8 - vehicle, so he opened the door of his vehicle and looked around, but he did not see Mr. Mooney. As soon as Mr. Zimmerman sat back in the driver’s seat, he heard gunshots and was shot. Mr. Zimmerman testified: “I cracked my door and I’m looking out and I didn’t see him. As soon as I sat back that’s when the gunshots happened.” Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
61454fa5-8375-4ff1-a9e0-aad019ae1dd9 | . Zimmerman suffered a wound to his back. Before requesting that the video be admitted into evidence, the prosecutor displayed an image from the video, which had been marked for identification as State’s Exhibit 1A, and asked Mr. Zimmerman whether he recognized it. Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
737d6dbc-3327-4eda-89e1-a95425d5b5f6 | . Zimmerman responded that he did and explained that the image showed him in his vehicle, the dispensary, a few houses, and a parking lot. Next, the following exchange occurred: [PROSECUTOR:] And is this an accurate depiction of the night? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Absolutely. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. And it’s a true depiction of what you recall? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yes | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
3caf2aa2-c26d-4a5d-ad5c-2d73444398c2 | . [PROSECUTOR:] It doesn’t look like there’s been any alterations or edits -- [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Absolutely. [PROSECUTOR:] -- to it? Okay. * * * [PROSECUTOR:] [T]his is what you know to be the 3900 block of Falls Road? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yes, sir. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. I will play little bit for you as well. (Playing 1A - 9 - for the witness | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
65329446-6398-4e0a-9b82-fdc693fac137 | .) And does there appear to be any edits or changes to the video as I played it for you? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] No. (Paragraph breaks omitted). The prosecutor offered the video, State’s Exhibit 1A, into evidence, and Mr. Mooney’s counsel objected. The circuit court initiated a bench conference, during which the following exchange occurred regarding authentication of the video: [MR | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
497c758e-a517-4ab0-86af-657ae34db381 | . MOONEY’S COUNSEL]: I mean, there’s no way to know if that video’s been altered. It’s somebody else’s Ring camera. These aren’t still photographs of what happened. THE COURT: Has he watched it? [MR. MOONEY’S COUNSEL]: I mean -- THE COURT: I don’t think that’s necessarily -- [MR. MOONEY’S COUNSEL]: And that was other -- THE COURT: -- a difference between still photographs and[] video | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
85edecb3-7eff-4030-a10b-77a2c56eab68 | . If he’s able to authenticate it, he’s able to authenticate it, but I don’t[ --] [MR. MOONEY’S COUNSEL]: Right. But I don’t know that he watched the whole thing either -- THE COURT: I don’t know either. [MR. MOONEY’S COUNSEL]: -- which is what I wanted to voir dire him on. THE COURT: Yeah | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
c5cce882-1ce5-45dc-8fc0-34c8e91760f8 | . [PROSECUTOR]: He has watched it in view, in preparation of this trial, he has -- THE COURT: Well, you -- you can ask him all that before, you haven’t laid the appropriate foundation for it yet. I don’t know if that video -- - 10 - [PROSECUTOR]: He’s authenticated it as to be the date and the time of the incident, it was a true and accurate reflection of that date and time | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
b474ea45-bfce-47cd-b236-454839fdd732 | . THE COURT: There are other questions you need to ask him, like, has he watched it. [PROSECUTOR]: Okay. THE COURT: And is it a fair and accurate representation of what happened. I mean, I’m not trying -- [PROSECUTOR]: Okay. THE COURT: Ask some more foundational questions. [PROSECUTOR]: Sure. After the bench conference concluded, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
dbca9ea9-d25e-4abe-97d8-3683657b4f05 | . Zimmerman: [PROSECUTOR:] Did you watch this video in preparation? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yes, I did. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. And after seeing that video[,] was that a true and accurate depiction of the events that occurred that day? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yes. [PROSECUTOR:] And there was nothing that was changed or altered? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] No. [PROSECUTOR:] From your recollection thereof? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] No | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
f0bf8db2-b165-4185-8403-2746826c4772 | . The prosecutor again offered State’s Exhibit 1A into evidence, and the circuit court stated that it would admit the exhibit over objection. The video, which lasts 1 minute and 51 - 11 - seconds, was played for the jury. In his brief in this Court, Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
b0c82eff-8078-4ff5-b538-0973c6517a29 | . Mooney described the content of the video as follows: State’s #1A is a 1 minute and 51 second video showing a black SUV parked on the street with what appears to be a person in the front driver’s seat of the vehicle. A person in a white shirt walks up the street, passing by the SUV on the passenger side, and then walks past the vehicle | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
39e2149b-cd95-4d04-ae2c-2416a3808e72 | . That person appears to stop, turn around, pull something from their waist, walk back towards the rear of the black SUV point something at the rear of the SUV, raise their hand and a few flashes come from the object in the person’s hand. The person then turns and quickly walks off the screen to the right | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
f9d7dfd5-ba8a-4df6-aa39-de38edff487f | . The person in the driver’s seat of the black SUV gets out of the SUV and walks quickly in the other direction off camera crossing the street. That same person returns later to the black SUV and appears to be talking on a phone. (State’s #1A “Mooney_Shooting_video.dat”). While the video was being played for the jury, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
e86fe624-d855-47fe-9e87-c22d20c5a63a | . Zimmerman: [PROSECUTOR:] Now, Mr. Zimmerman, I’m going to ask who is that individual in the white shirt walking around? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Uh, that was, um, Christopher Mooney. [PROSECUTOR:] In the white shirt? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] In the white shirt? [PROSECUTOR:] Correct. [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] I don’t -- I don’t know. I just know of him, that’s it | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
ebe4a5c7-a1e8-4635-87df-f484d07adba8 | . [PROSECUTOR:] Who was the individual that exited the driver’s seat of the SUV? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Oh, that was me. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] I had a pink shirt on. - 12 - [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. Pink, my apologies -- [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yeah, pink -- [PROSECUTOR:] -- my eyes -- [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] -- shirt on. [PROSECUTOR: Um, and were you holding your back? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yes | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
171c125d-16c9-48d0-b9da-b10cc2baa648 | . [PROSECUTOR:] Why were you holding your back? [MR. ZIMMERMAN: Um, because that’s where I was hit at with the bullet. After the video had been played, the following exchange occurred: [PROSECUTOR:] Now, Mr. Zimmerman, we saw you run off the screen in State’s Exhibit 1A, correct? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] Yes. [PROSECUTOR :] Okay. Where did you run off to? [MR. ZIMMERMAN:] I ran to the McDonald[’]s | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
9be4eb72-7904-47cd-9e71-000045cc4c12 | . [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. Mr. Zimmerman identified Mr. Mooney as the person in the video wearing the white shirt and identified himself as the person in the pink shirt. The circuit court also admitted into evidence, without objection, two other videos, identified as State’s Exhibits 1B and 2, and the videos were played for the jury. Mr. Zimmerman testified that State’s Exhibit 1B showed Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
3aa19250-8a56-4504-8b01-09c220950d1e | . Mooney in front of an SUV. State’s Exhibit 1B does not show the shooting.3 3During the State’s closing argument, however, the prosecutor indicated that three shots could be heard in State’s Exhibit 1B. State’s Exhibit 1A did not have audio. - 13 - Mr. Zimmerman testified that State’s Exhibit 2 showed the inside of the McDonald’s near the dispensary, where he went after he was shot | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
9f21b633-c8f3-4327-a5a0-e0c198bf7c1f | . As a witness for the State, Detective Victor Liu of the Baltimore Police Department testified that, on September 3, 2021, he responded to a report of “a shooting incident in the 3900 block of Falls Road.” There, Detective Liu saw an SUV with bullet holes in the back and whose rear window had been “shot out.” Detective Liu testified that Mr. Zimmerman said that Mr. Mooney shot him | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
cd8d6e19-710b-4720-b906-c88f557fa723 | . The prosecutor displayed an image from State’s Exhibit 1A and asked Detective Liu whether he recognized it. Detective Liu responded that he did and explained that the image was from “the video [that he] recovered from the crime scene.” Detective Liu testified that, when responding to a crime scene, the first thing that officers do is identify “possible witnesses and look for cameras[ | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
ae7ce65b-d221-4088-86b8-d9ba33127593 | .]” Detective Liu testified: “[It] just so happened this gentleman had a camera that’s mounted on an exterior wall . . . of his residence, so [] I spoke with the [] individual who provided that[] footage for me[.]” The jury found Mr. Mooney guilty of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and gun offenses.4 Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
7a4e96ad-a539-4b29-a10f-2c004c538526 | . Mooney was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for second- degree assault, 15 years consecutive for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, with the first 5 years to be served without parole, 3 years consecutive for possession of a handgun, and 1 year concurrent for both possession of ammunition by a prohibited person 4The jury found Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
20a304e2-458c-4977-9db9-f1c372d31ba8 | . Mooney not guilty of attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and first-degree assault. - 14 - and discharging a firearm in Baltimore City.5 Mr. Mooney appealed. Opinion of the Appellate Court of Maryland The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
5c1c82ad-ff41-460f-a904-9f1eb5b7381a | . Mooney’s convictions, explaining that the video was properly authenticated through the testimony of a witness with knowledge under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(1) and under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4), which provides that evidence can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence. See Christopher Mooney v. State, No. 1561, Sept. Term, 2022, 2023 WL 6783388, at *5 (Md. App. Ct. Oct. 13, 2023) | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
c0f6d5e0-da34-455b-9d56-c3db3d751257 | . The Appellate Court did not adopt Mr. Mooney’s position that the foundational requirements for authentication were not met because Mr. Zimmerman could not authenticate the video under the “pictorial testimony” method of authentication, as he was not a witness to the entirety of the video. See id. at *4 | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
b65f03d5-cdf6-4be3-bd04-97b875680dbe | . The Appellate Court stated that “videos may be authenticated under several theories, including the ‘pictorial testimony’ theory[.]” Id. at *2 (cleaned up). The Appellate Court explained that the test for authentication of a video is not as strict as Mr. Mooney contended, as there need only be sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to determine that the video is what the proponent claims | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
bb7630c4-a632-403e-af8c-f520433e61ab | . See id. *2, *4. The Appellate Court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video and that, although Mr. Zimmerman did not see the shooter at the time that he was shot, that circumstance went to the weight to be given Mr. 5The reckless endangerment conviction merged with the second-degree assault conviction for sentencing purposes | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
8d73dc0a-46cb-4a7e-87e8-5df6520f112c | . - 15 - Zimmerman’s testimony, not the admissibility of the video. See id. at *5.6 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari On November 30, 2023, Mr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
543f8cd7-5bf8-40a6-8741-77eb00d5e11e | . Mooney petitioned for a writ of certiorari, raising the following issue: “Whether the Appellate Court lowered the requirement for authentication of video evidence through the ‘pictorial testimony theory’ of admission when the authenticating witness did not witness the entirety of the events depicted in it?” On February 16, 2024, we granted the petition. See Mooney v. State, 486 Md. 387, 310 A | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
dc054f9e-11ac-47fe-820c-e6df71f50c8f | .3d 651 (2024). DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review An appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s determination as to whether an exhibit was properly authenticated. See Sample, 468 Md. at 588, 228 A.3d at 189; Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 676, 113 A.3d 695, 721 (2015); Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343, 357, 19 A.3d 415, 423 (2011). B | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
6358c2d0-ad4a-444e-93ac-f2ba474fa76a | . Authentication of Evidence: The “Reasonable Juror” Test “[T]he bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high.” Sublet, 442 Md. at 666, 113 A.3d at 715 (cleaned up). In Sublet, id. at 638, 113 A | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
b2eb6617-d639-43e3-baac-bb4f42eef0cf | .3d at 698, we adopted a straightforward test for authentication of social media evidence, holding that, “to authenticate evidence derived from a social networking website, the trial judge must 6The Appellate Court also held that Mr. Mooney preserved for appellate review his contention that the video was not properly authenticated. See Mooney, 2023 WL 6783388, at *4. That issue is not before us | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
956b47b5-8db3-427f-8d0f-1d9dfd885816 | . - 16 - determine that there is proof from which a reasonable juror could find that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.” We applied the “reasonable juror” test to authentication of social media evidence in Sublet, and, subsequently, in Sample, 468 Md. at 567-68, 228 A.3d at 176, we concluded that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the “reasonable juror” test | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
0e96d32c-f747-4106-bf48-413a46e6efb7 | . The history of the “reasonable juror” test in our case law began even earlier, with Griffin, 419 Md. 343, 19 A.3d 415. In Griffin, id. at 357-58, 19 A.3d at 423-24, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the social media evidence at issue.7 We declined to establish a bright-line test for authentication of social media evidence. See id. at 363, 19 A.3d at 427 | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
176fc88f-c721-4ab7-925e-54378c80cb27 | . Rather, we discussed a variety of ways in which social media evidence could be authenticated, such as through testimony of a person with knowledge (for instance, the purported author of a post or message), inspecting the device of the person who allegedly created the post or profile at issue to determine whether the device was used to create the profile or post, or obtaining information from the | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
1fc5de4a-5267-45fc-a12a-0af21ca6ae8f | social media company that 7At trial, the State had attempted to introduce evidence that was purportedly a printout from the MySpace page of the girlfriend of the defendant (whose nickname was allegedly “Boozy”) to demonstrate that the girlfriend had threatened a State’s witness | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
26110817-84af-4056-b2a0-baa615a12b22 | . See Griffin, 419 Md. at 350, 19 A.3d at 419. The page contained language stating: “‘FREE BOOZY!!!! JUST REMEMBER SNITCHES GET STITCHES!! U KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!’” Id. at 350, 19 A.3d at 419. The State did not attempt to authenticate the page through the testimony of a witness with knowledge, i.e | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
6671d437-b5c7-49fa-9942-6e87e999dd17 | ., the girlfriend, but instead attempted to authenticate the printout through the testimony of an investigator. See id. at 348, 19 A.3d at 418 | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
cf5072a4-6ac3-4f18-a741-7ab73396b74c | . We determined that the printout was not sufficiently authenticated through circumstantial evidence under Maryland Rule 5-901(b)(4) because a photograph of the defendant’s girlfriend and information about her date of birth and the town in which she lived on the page were not “distinctive characteristics” that sufficiently indicated that the girlfriend created the profile or wrote the post that | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
f0baaf90-9504-42ac-a1fb-4986ab6c435d | the State sought to introduce into evidence | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
7d38f378-2312-48cd-9975-894b9896e77a | . Id. at 357, 19 A.3d at 424. - 17 - would connect the profile or post to the person who created it. See id. at 363-64, 19 A.3d at 427-28. In a dissenting opinion joined by the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., the Honorable Glenn T. Harrell, Jr | Mooney_v_State_2024-08-13.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.