A Webb County District Court refused to admit a mother’s provocative Facebook pictures in a termination case. The County Attorney attempted to introduce Facebook pictures and posts by asking the mother if she in fact had posted provocative pictures of herself. When the mother said no, the attorney sought to use the pictures to show the jury that the mother was a liar and to impeach her character. I’m sure the shock factor of a mother of six posing for nasty pictures for the public to see was only a small bonus.
The mother, whose Facebook pictures and comments were too inappropriate for repeating here, argued that they should be excluded for two reasons. One, because she recanted her testimony that she hadn’t posted provocative pictures, and two, because they were more prejudicial that probative.
The Appellate Court agreed with her first point because the record showed the jury already knew she was liar and the introduction of more evidence that she lied about whether or not she posts provocative pictures of Facebook would be redundant. The Court then cited the proposition that exclusion of evidence that is cumulative is harmless.
I’m not saying there is much of a lesson in this case except that there are situations where Facebook pictures are inadmissible. The mother in this case was accused of many disturbing acts including trying to set her house on fire with her children in it. I don’t think the Facebook pictures were the center of the County’s case.