Facebook No Friend in Palm Beach County Carjacking Case
That's one of the lessons from an appeals court ruling in a carjacking case in which police discovered a Facebook video that showed a defendant driving the victim's car and wearing the victim's stolen watch.
May 03, 2018 at 12:19 PM
4 minute read
Memo to criminals: You might want to think twice about what you post to Facebook.
That's one of the lessons from an appeals court ruling Wednesday in a carjacking case in which police discovered a Facebook video that showed a defendant driving the victim's car and wearing the victim's stolen watch. The video also showed a co-defendant in the passenger's seat, counting the victim's money.
The ruling by a panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which upheld grand-theft convictions of defendant Arkheem J. Lamb, detailed a series of legal issues in the case, including issues that could come up in other cases amid ubiquitous social-media posting. As an example, the ruling dealt with questions about authentication needed before Facebook video can be used in court.
But the ruling also made clear Lamb might have never been convicted in the Palm Beach County case if he wasn't spotted on Facebook.
“But for the defendant's participation in the Facebook video showing off the bounty from that night's criminal escapade, the state may not have had sufficient evidence to convict the defendant as a participant in these crimes,” said the 16-page ruling, written by Chief Judge Jonathan Gerber and joined by Judges Robert Gross and Jeffrey Kuntz. “However, the Facebook video existed, and made the state's case.”
Lamb was convicted of grand theft of a vehicle and grand theft in the 2016 case and was sentenced to three years of probation, according to information on the Florida Department of Corrections website. He also was accused of taking part in another carjacking incident but was acquitted.
The incidents occurred a few hours — and about 30 miles — apart, according to the appeals court ruling. The incident that led to Lamb's conviction involved a victim who was sitting in his car near a hotel in Jupiter. After a gun was put to the man's head, two men took his car, phone, watch, wallet and cash, which included Cuban money.
The next day, as police investigated the two carjackings, the victim in the first incident identified two of Lamb's co-defendants, but not Lamb. Ultimately, defendants obtained a search warrant for one of the co-defendants' phones and found a Facebook video that showed cars stolen in both carjacking incidents.
When the case went to trial, the victim in the first carjacking testified that the video showed Lamb driving the victim's car and wearing the victim's watch. He also testified that one of the co-defendants could be seen counting the Cuban money. A detective testified that the Facebook video had been posted about 21 minutes after the second carjacking.
A jury later convicted Lamb, whose attorneys raised a series of issues in the appeal. Among other things, according to Wednesday's ruling, the attorneys contended that the Facebook video was not properly authenticated and should not have been admitted into evidence because the detective and a police digital forensic examiner “did not record the video and were not shown in the recording of the video.”
But the appeals court rejected the arguments and upheld the convictions.
“The first victim testified that the defendant could be seen on the Facebook video driving the first victim's car while wearing the first victim's watch while a codefendant counted the first victim's Cuban money,” the ruling said. “The Jupiter police detective also testified that the defendant could be seen on the Facebook video driving the first victim's car while stating 'we live' on the video. Based on this evidence, we conclude the state made a prima facie showing of the video's authenticity for the purpose of admission into evidence, thus allowing the jury to make the ultimate determination of the weight to be given to the video's contents.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1People in the News—Nov. 26, 2024—Barley Snyder, McNees
- 2Akin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
- 3Walking a Minute in Your Adversary’s Shoes: Addressing the Issue of 'Naive Realism' at Mediation
- 4The Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
- 5New Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250