Legal Question in Technology Law in Arkansas

Re: Instant messaging and the law

As far as evidence goes, Instant Message transcripts are no different from emails or written documents. Whether they are admissible depends on factors like what they are being offered to prove and what exactly they say, but that is also true of other writings; the fact that a particular record happens to be an Instant Messenger transcript is not really pertinent.

Of course, the party offering the record will have to prove that it was written by the person they claim was its author, but that is also true of all written evidence.

Ou-of-court statements are presumptively not admissible because they are hearsay, but there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule and at least one of them -- the exception for admissions against penal interest -- would likely apply here. The hearsay rule thus would not keep such a statement out.

Laypeople often mistakenly believe that a lawyer can look at a piece of evidence and offer a meaningful opinion about its admissibility. This isn't how it works. A statement that says "I just used cocaine" will not be admissible unless the subject of the author's drug use is relevant to the case. If the author is on trial for drug use it would probably be relevant, but if he is the plaintiff in a breach of contract case it might not be. It all depends on the specific circumstances of the case.