Is internet information admissible evidence? Standing alone, the information is hearsay – an out of court statement, not subject to cross examination, being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Sometimes, internet information falls into an exception to the hearsay rule, if the information comes from a source that is otherwise trustworthy.
“To be admitted under MRE 803(24), the hearsay exception rule, a hearsay statement must: (1) demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the categorical exceptions, (2) be relevant to a material fact, (3) be the most probative evidence of that fact reasonably available, and (4) serve the interests of justice by its admission.” People v Katt, 468 Mich 272, 290; 662 NW2d 12 (2003); see also, Kagen v Kagen, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 318459 (July 14, 2015).
The Michigan trial and appellate courts treat internet information this way:
Government website – YES, admissible
Government statistics (e.g., employment, average salary) – YES, admissible
Government reports on schools- YES, admissible
Government health records – YES, admissible
Government health reports (e.g., Center for Disease Control) – YES, admissible
Social media - YES, admissible (if you can identify the user)
Wikipedia – NO!
Snopes – NO!
Attorney blogs – NO! (but retrieve the primary source blogged, such as a case)
Doctor blogs – NO! (for the same reason)
Hospital blogs – NO! (but retrieve the primary source blogged, such as a study)
WAVE – NO!
Advocacy blogs (e.g., Unicef)- NO!
To be continued…
Don’t forget: The weight to apply to this information, even when admitted, is up to the judge or jury. That means, even if the information is admissible evidence, whether to believe all, part or none of it is up to the fact finder.