However, this Court has held that “[a]lthough the record is unclear as to whether [Armstrong] was present when his attorney made [the] announcement [that she was withdrawing a demand for speedy trial], we know of no requirement that the client be present for the voluntary act by his counsel that results in such a waiver.” Twiggs v. State, 315 Ga.App. 191, 200(3), 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012). See also Burdett v. State, 285 Ga.App. 571, 573(2), 646 S.E.2d 748 (2007) (finding that defendant's demand for a speedy trial was properly withdrawn when his counsel filed a motion to withdraw his demand for speedy trial, despite defendant's arguments that he did not know about his counsel's motion nor did he consent to it).
“We review the trial court's admission of this evidence for an abuse of discretion.” Twiggs v. State, 315 Ga.App. 191, 197(2), 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012).The cited language appeared in this context:
Then, to be relevant and material to the case at hand, the printouts often will need to be further “authenticated as having been posted by a particular source.” 2 McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 227. See, e.g., Twiggs v. State, 315 Ga.App. 191(2), 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012); Hollie, 298 Ga.App. at 3(1), 679 S.E.2d 47. With regard to the Ifshewontiwill website, one of the investigating officers testified that he made the printouts of the website, which were “a fair and accurate representation of the actual things” that he personally viewed on the website as part of his investigation.
Courts across the country have wrestled with the issue of authenticating electronic communications. See Brown v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 154, 573 S.W.3d 536 (2019) (authentication of Instagram messages); Parker v. State, 85 A.3d 682 (Del. 2014) (authentication of Facebook posts); Twiggs v. State, 315 Ga.App. 191, 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012) (authentication of emails); Hannah, 151 A.3d at 99 (authentication of Twitter tweets); Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication of MySpace posts). Some state courts have expressed reservations regarding all such media because of the ease of hacking, misappropriation, fraud, identity theft and overall the ease by which one person can masquerade as another online or by telephone.
See Armstrong v. State , 325 Ga.App. 33, 40(7)(a), 752 S.E.2d 120 (2013) (“[A]lthough the record is unclear as to whether [the defendant] was present when his attorney made the announcement that she was withdrawing a demand for speedy trial, we know of no requirement that the client be present for the voluntary act by his counsel that results in such a waiver.”) (punctuation omitted), quoting Twiggs v. State , 315 Ga.App. 191, 200, 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012). See also Burdett v. State , 285 Ga.App. 571, 573, 646 S.E.2d 748 (2007) (holding that defendant effectively withdrew his speedy trial demand when his attorney filed a motion to withdraw his demand, notwithstanding defendant's arguments that he did not know nor consent to the motion).
See Armstrong v. State , 325 Ga.App. 33, 40(7)(a), 752 S.E.2d 120 (2013) (“[A]lthough the record is unclear as to whether [the defendant] was present when his attorney made the announcement that she was withdrawing a demand for speedy trial, we know of no requirement that the client be present for the voluntary act by his counsel that results in such a waiver.”) (punctuation omitted), quoting Twiggs v. State , 315 Ga.App. 191, 200, 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012). See also Burdett v. State , 285 Ga.App. 571, 573, 646 S.E.2d 748 (2007) (holding that defendant effectively withdrew his speedy trial demand when his attorney filed a motion to withdraw his demand, notwithstanding defendant's arguments that he did not know nor consent to the motion).