by Alan J. Pransky | Updated 2025 | Evidence, Technology, Trial Practice
Editor’s Note (Updated 2025):
This article was originally published in 2014 and has been updated to reflect current Massachusetts case law and practices for admitting text messages and other digital communications into evidence. Recent decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Appeals Court have clarified how text messages, emails, and social media messages may be authenticated and introduced at trial.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a prosecutor about proving a case with text messages. I represented a victim of a crime in which the perpetrator had confirmed that he had punched my client — in a text message. The prosecutor told me it would be extremely difficult to use that text message as evidence. He said he would have to subpoena the phone company to obtain the text, call a records custodian to testify that the message came from the defendant’s phone number, and then still prove that the defendant actually sent it — and not someone else who used the phone.
That conversation reflected how courts once struggled to apply traditional evidence rules to new forms of communication. Fortunately, Massachusetts law has evolved. It is now much easier to introduce text messages and other electronic communications into evidence than many lawyers and police officers once thought.
The Legal Standard: Authentication and Foundation
In Massachusetts, introducing any form of communication — whether a letter, phone call, email, or text message — requires that it be authenticated. Authentication simply means there must be enough evidence for a jury (or judge) to reasonably find that the item is what the proponent claims it to be.
For text messages, the question is usually whether the message actually came from the person claimed to have sent it. The foundational requirement can be met through testimony, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. A prosecutor no longer needs to subpoena a phone company to prove that a text message came from a particular device or account.
The introduction of a text message typically involves two steps:
- Foundation (Authentication) – establishing who sent or received the message.
- Contents – showing what the message said.
If the recipient can testify that they recognize the sender’s phone number, contact name, or the conversation’s context, that testimony is usually enough to authenticate the message. For example, if the message came from a number stored in the witness’s phone as belonging to the defendant, and the conversation references shared experiences or facts only the defendant would know, courts are likely to find a sufficient foundation.
Once authenticated, the content can be introduced through a screenshot, a printed copy, or a forensic download from the phone. The best practice is to display the message directly from the device in court and provide a printed copy for the record.
While early cases focused on traditional SMS text messages, more recent cases have extended the same evidentiary principles to other digital communications, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Signal, and iMessage.
Courts look at the totality of circumstances to determine authenticity — things like:
- The use of personal details or nicknames
- Profile information or photographs
- Patterns of prior communication
- Or the continuity of the conversation across different platforms.
The key question is not the medium, but whether the evidence reasonably connects the communication to the alleged sender.
Practical Considerations
Technology has made it easier to capture and present digital evidence. Attorneys and litigants should:
- Preserve messages early. Take screenshots, export message threads, or back up phones before replacing devices.
- Maintain metadata when possible. A forensic copy may be necessary in serious cases.
- Be prepared to authenticate. Identify the witness who can explain how the messages were received and why they believe the sender is who they claim.
- Be aware of privacy and discovery issues. Messages obtained through hacking, impersonation, or without consent can raise admissibility problems.
Conclusion
The introduction of text messages as evidence is no longer the difficult task it once seemed. Massachusetts courts have adopted a common-sense approach that treats text messages, emails, and social-media communications much like traditional phone calls or letters. Testimony from the recipient, combined with contextual clues, can be enough to authenticate and admit the evidence.
Technology continues to evolve, but the rules of evidence adapt with it. An experienced trial attorney must understand how to apply long-standing evidentiary principles to new forms of communication — ensuring that vital digital evidence is properly admitted in court.
