The term evidence can be used with a wide array of connotations. In such regard, litigants would wonder whether social media or text message screenshots or other snippets can be used as evidence in Alaskan court proceedings. While the answer to the question might be in affirmative, it does come with its own strings attached. This blog posts guides through the process of authentication, hearsay rules, and how such evidence or digital evidence as a whole is evaluated in family law cases.

Majority of the family law cases either predominantly or partially turn on the presence of screenshots of multiple items such as text messages, emails, social media posts, call logs etc. While the screenshot of these items may be used however it is not an automatic reliance. Screenshots are never self-proving. Courts tend to look at authentication, relevance, and hearsay rules before deciding whether digital evidence is admissible.

This article attempts to explain what screenshots may be treated as bearing evidentiary value, how the decision to admit them is made, common hearsay problems, and practical issues that arise in custody and divorce cases.

1. Authentication of Screenshots as Evidence 

Under the Alaskan law, the first hurdle to be crossed is that of authentication. This obligation has to be surpassed regardless whether the evidence sought to be submitted is digital or physical. The rule followed for the purposes of authentication is Alaska Evidence Rule 901(a)  

The authentication rule is stipulated under the Alaska Evidence Rule 901(a) provides for the requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. So rather in plain terms the judge must be convinced by the screenshot that it is genuine. 

Authentication of Screenshots in Practice

The common modes of authentication of a screenshot could be through various modes such as (i) testimony from the person in receipt of or sending the item that has been preserved and presented through the screenshot, (ii) testimony explaining when and how the screenshot was taken, (iii) presenting in evidence of the phone or device itself, (iv) corroboration of screenshots with other evidence.

Screenshots do not have to be perfect rather have to authenticated. An unexplained screenshot that creates more confusion or raises more suspicion are often excluded or given little weight.

2. Screenshots and Hearsay 

Upon passing the authentication threshold, screenshots sought to be admitted in evidence have to also pass the hearsay rules. In this regard it is important to understand what constitutes hearsay. 

Alaska Evidence Rule 801(c) provide the definition of hearsay in the terms that it is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In light of this definition many screenshots would constitute hearsay because they contain statements made outside court. However, this does not mean that they are automatically excluded, it just means that the hearsay statements must qualify through an exception or exclusion. This blogpost shall also discuss the mode of avoiding the hearsay prohibition. 

3. Modes of Avoiding Screenshots Hearsay Ban
   • • Admissions of a Party Opponent

   Amongst the most common exceptions which applies to the case is when the screenshot contains statements made by the opposing party against whom the screenshot is poised to prove or disprove a matter. Under the Alaska Evidence Rule 801(d)(2), statements made by a party and offered against that party are not treated as hearsay. Examples for such statements would be texts admitting misconduct, texts exhibiting angry emotion or threat messages, and/ or apologies. The common trend shown by the courts is that such messages and screenshots are frequently admitted.

   • • Statements Showing State of Mind

   Under Alaska Evidence Rule 803(3), statements showing intent, emotion, sensation, physical condition or the mental state may be admissible. Such a statement should be displaying the intent, plan, motive, design, pain, and bodily health. These elements would commonly be offered to prove a party’s present condition or future action, however not including a statement of memory or belief. The examples of such statements would include display of emotions such as “I’m furious and coming over” or “I’m scared of what you’ll do”. Such statements are also often admitted however not to prove facts but to showcase mindset. 

   • • Effects on the Listener

   In cases such as one showing a threat was received is offered to explain why a protective order was sought, screenshots showcasing the explanation would be admitted as the admission would not be for the truth of the matter asserted rather to show their impact. These instances are not cases of hearsay. 

   4. 4. Utility of Screenshots in Custody and Protective Orders 

   In Alaska custody and domestic violence protective order hearings, judges have broad discretion to rely on a multiplicity of evidential sources. Protective orders under AS 18.66.100 are civil proceedings, not criminal trials, and therefore the court may consider a variety of sources for evidence including but not limited to screenshots, affidavits, sworn testimony, pattern evidence, which are assessed on the basis of preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

   Resultantly screenshots would often be admitted but the weight associated would depend on the credibility and context. 

   4. 5. Screenshots Alone Are Rarely Enough

Screenshots are considered stronger evidence when corroborated with other evidence. Screenshots when relied upon certainly come forth with this caution. 

Generally, problems arise in situations when (i) screenshots are cropped (ii) the dates or phone numbers are missing, (iii) messages hint to be out of context, (iv) metadata of the screenshot is unavailable. 

The absence of corroborating evidence does not mean that the admission of the screenshots would be barred, but certainly the weight assigned to the screenshots would be little in this regard. 

3. 3. 6. Concerns Relating to Alteration and Fabrication of Screenshots

Since screenshots can be altered it can pose a major concern in permitting evidence in shape of screenshots, as it is likely that the opposing party would claim manipulation of the evidence sought to be admitted. In such circumstances the court may have to delve into the following considerations to balance equities (i) whether the original device is available, (ii) whether full threads of messages presented through the screenshots are available and produced, (iii) if the screenshot aligns with the carrier records, and/or (iv) if inconsistencies appear on the face of the screenshots. 

In such circumstances, deliberate fabrication can seriously dent the credibility of evidence leading to, at times, irreparable damages and reverberations specifically in custody cases. 

3. 3. 7. Social Media Screenshots

Screenshots of social media posts or other such platforms are commonly offered in litigation. In such circumstances, the courts have to look for identifiable usernames, timestamps, surrounding posts or comments or other such confirmation that the account belongs to the person who is claimed to have the social media account associated with. It should be noted that the proper structure for submissions is what constitutes the proper parameter for admissibility of social media posts.

3. 3. 8. Obligations in Discovery and Requirement When Screenshots Would Have to Shared

If intending to rely on screenshots at trial or hearing, Alaska Civil Rules require disclosures during the discovery stage. Failure to disclose the relevant screenshots can result in the exclusion of evidence, or continuances granted, or sanctions imposed. 

The bottom line is that the courts demand transparency, especially in circumstances when children are involved. 

3. 3. 9. Practical Guidance 

In general, you are (1) Keep original devices, when possible, (2) Avoid editing or cropping screenshots, (3) Preserve full conversations, (4) Save timestamps and identifying information (5) Back up data securely, (6) Be cautious about context. Courts care less about how dramatic a message looks and more about accuracy and reliability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, screenshots can be powerful evidence but should be mistaken as automatic proof. Note that the evidence must be authentic, pass the hearsay bar, and be credible and complete. When screenshots are properly preserved, authenticated, and supported, they can meaningfully influence outcomes. When they are sloppy or misleading, they often backfire. Understanding these principles helps people prepare better and avoid mistakes that undermine their credibility.