Emojis As Evidence in Trial

A Grounded Theory Study on Judges’ Perspectives on Emojis

Authors

  • Gabriela Zeidler Advanced Technologies Academy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v10i1.1373

Keywords:

Law, Emojis, Emoticons, Trial, Evidence, Technology Advancements, Judges

Abstract

As the sophistication and use of technology increases, communication through technology becomes more common, leading to the increasing use of emojis. In turn, this has led to an increase of emojis being used as evidence in court, with little guidance of how they can be interpreted within the law. This study examines the ways judges perceive emojis in court, especially when they are used as evidence. Through a grounded theory qualitative study, semi-structured interviews of judges throughout the Southwest region of the United States were conducted and analyzed according to Charmaz grounded theory guidelines (Charmaz, 2006) to determine judges’ perceptions of the use of emojis in court as evidence. This seeks to determine how emojis are used within the court system as they can carry and convey many different meanings to different people.  This study found that many judges find it necessary to have context with emojis for the purposes of interpretation by the jury, but it is not necessary for special instructions to be made in regards to emojis. Additionally, this study found other aspects of trial including jury selection and the appellate court are being affected by the increasing usage of emojis as evidence due to their highly subjective nature. Further research is needed to assess the broader implications of advancements in technology on the legal system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References or Bibliography

American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology. (2019). Retrieved March 03, 2020, from

https://dictionary.apa.org/communication/.

Carlson, S. (2016). When is a Tweet Not Admissible? Closing the Gap in the Federal Rules of Evidence. (2016). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(1033), 1033–1065. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ce1/ed5871494e7840ffe6ea1531d1d1ff180318.pdf.

Dorn, S. (2019, August 4). New York gangs are using emojis as a secret language to plan crimes. Retrieved from

https://nypost.com/2019/08/03/new-york-gangs-are-using-emojis-as-a-secret-language-to-plan-crimes/.

Geha, G. (2016). Think Twice Before Posting Online: Criminalizing Threats Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) After Elonis, 50 J. Marshall L. Rev. 167 (2016). The John Marshall Law Review, 50(1), 167–189. Retrieved from

http://repository.jmls.edu/lawreview/vol50/iss1/6.

Gesselman AN, Ta VP, Garcia JR (2019) Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLoS ONE 14(8): e0221297. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297.

Goldman, E. (2018). Emojis and the Law. Washington Law Review, 93(3), 1227–1291. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132927950&site=ehost-live.

Ho, H. L. (2015, November 13). The Legal Concept of Evidence. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/#ConForRecEviWhaCouEviLaw.

Hakami, S. A. A. (2017, January 1). [PDF] The Importance of Understanding Emoji: An Investigative Study - Semantic Scholar. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Importance-of-Understanding-Emoji-:-An-Study-Hakami/5eb24dfd7addb5dcfcc90f40d583e7475ce06a5b.

Janssen, E. (2018). Hearsay in the Smiley Face: Analyzing the Use of Emojis as Evidence. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 49(3), 699–725. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130519445&site=ehost-live.

Kirley, A, E., McMahon, & Marilyn. (2017, December 14). The Emoji Factor: Humanizing the Emerging Law of Digital Speech. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3068058.

Lidsky, L. B., & Norbut, L. R. (2018). #I�U: Considering the Context of Online Threats. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol106/iss6/3/.

Miller, H. (2017, May 3). Understanding Emoji Ambiguity in Context: The Role of Text in Emoji-Related Miscommunication. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/view/15703.

Pelletier, N. (2016). The Emoji that Cost $20,000: Triggering Liability for Defamation on Social Media. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 52, 228–254. Retrieved from https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol52/iss1/15.

Scall, R. (2016). Emoji as Language and Their Place outside American Copyright Law. Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, 5(2), 381–405. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=119884902&site=ehost-live.

Unicode Consortium. (2019, September 18). Unicode Consortium. Retrieved from https://home.unicode.org/.

Weiser, B. (2015, January 28). At Silk Road Trial, Lawyers Fight to Include Evidence They Call Vital: Emoji. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/nyregion/trial-silk-road-online-black-market-debating-emojis.html.

Published

03-31-2021

How to Cite

Zeidler, G. (2021). Emojis As Evidence in Trial: A Grounded Theory Study on Judges’ Perspectives on Emojis. Journal of Student Research, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v10i1.1373

Issue

Section

AP Capstone™ Research