June 4 is when the State turned over this evidence. Judge used the inability to authenticate as her excuse when the State’s delay was the exact reason they couldn’t track down the people on the other side of the text and ask them if this was, in fact, TM sending the texts.
Have a suspicion this judge would have used the same logic on the receivers.
It may be their phone, but how can you prove they were in possession of the phone, and were the actual one reading it, or responding.....
This judge would clearly disagree with ZOT-ing. After all,who know who actually typed it. It could have been ANYONE at the keyboard.
there is at least one case that is right on point for this and it should be allowed in..sorry can’t tell you the name because I saw the name this morning
WTFTV hedged and didn’t say it was outright reversible error..said it is possibly reversible error
I think it ultimately goes to what is shown by the preponderance of the evidence? Phone linked to GZ. Receivers testify to getting his texts. Another path might be linguistic analysis to show if the style is consistent disproving the contention that a five year old cracked the phone and texted about fighting etc.