Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Makes Text Messages Not Hearsay?
In Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 45 MAP 2012 (S.Ct. Dec. 30, 2014), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave us a present in the form of an affirmance of a Superior Court panel decision that reversed the trial court's denial of the exclusion of text messages on the grounds that they were hearsay. Because the affirmance was the result of a six-justice court being evenly divided at 3-3, none of the opinions is controlling. Nevertheless, they provide insight into the issues arising from the attempt, at least in a criminal matter, to move into evidence text messages without the sender or receiver of those messages being the witness introducing them.
Factual Background
Police searched the trash bins outside of the residence of the defendant, Amy Koch, her boyfriend and her brother. The search yielded plastic baggies containing cocaine and marijuana residue. Police executed a search warrant for the location and found two baggies, each containing 10 grams of marijuana, and a third bag containing marijuana, as well as a bong, a grinder used to separate seeds and stems from the marijuana leaves smoked, empty bags, a scale and the butt of a marijuana joint. They also seized two cellphones, one on the kitchen table near some of the other evidence described; when they seized that phone, the defendant asked them repeatedly “why her cellphone was being taken.” The defendant, her brother and her boyfriend were arrested.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.