The Federal rules of emojis: a proposed framework for handling emoji evidence in trial contexts

The article was first published in English language by Fordham Law Review. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu

For original publication: Hurzeler, M. (2023). The Federal rules of emojis: a proposed framework for handling emoji evidence in trial contexts. Fordham Law Review, 92(1), 223–254.

Publication URL: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol92/iss1/6

Objective: to consider emojis as a new form of evidence and to elaborate scientifically grounded proposals for their legal qualification in the USA.

Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods formal-logical and sociological.

Results: Emojis are 3,633 ubiquitous symbols-as-communication used by 92 percent of internet users. These tiny yet influential pieces of evidence hold the power to complete, enhance, mitigate, and flip the meaning of surrounding text. Consequently, court references to emojis have grown exponentially in the last five years. As emojis have become a cornerstone of digital discourse, courts have increasingly encountered the significant impact of emojis on parties’ legal claims. A guide for handling of emoji evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), therefore, is important to afford proper treatment to this relatively new evidentiary form.

Scientific novelty: The article considers the issues of classification of emojis as a widely used means of communication according to FRE. After analyzing expert testimony and the presentation of emoji evidence through the lenses of FRE 702, 701, 803(5), and 403, the author argues that relevant emoji evidence should always be shown—not just read—to jurors on party request. Additionally, the article argues that emojis cannot reasonably be ignored and that senders and recipients should always retain the opportunity to testify about their intended and understood emoji meanings. Finally, the recommendation is for the courts to generally exclude third-party testimony on emojis’ meanings.

Practical significance: the key provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in the scientific, educational and law-enforcement activity when viewing the issues of emojis qualification.

1. Capers, B. (2011). Crime, Legitimacy, Our Criminal Network, and the Wire. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 8, 459, 466.

2. Evans, V. (2017). The Emoji Code: The Linguistics Behind Smiley Faces and Scaredy Cats. Science, 357(6353), 763. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5728

3. Goldman, E. (2018). Emojis and the Law. Washington Law Review, 93(3), 1227–1291.

4. Greenland, S. (2004). The Need for Critical Appraisal of Expert Witnesses in Epidemiology and Statistics. Wake Forest Law Review, 39, 291.

5. Gross, S. R. (1991). Expert Evidence, Wisconsin Law Review, 1113, 1139.

6. Hurzeler, M. (2023). The Federal Rules of Emojis: A Proposed Framework for Handling Emoji Evidence in Trial Contexts. Fordham Law Review, 92(1), 223–254.

7. Janssen, E. (2018). Comment, Hearsay in the Smiley Face: Analyzing the Use of Emojis as Evidence. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 49(3), 699, 724.

8. Jones, R. A., & Lidsky, L. B. (2016). Of Reasonable Readers and Unreasonable Speakers: Libel Law in a Networked World. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 23(2), 155, 166–67.

9. Kirley, E., & McMahon, M. (2018). The Emoji Factor: Humanizing the Emerging Law of Digital Speech. Tennessee Law Review, 85(2), 517.

10. Kirley, E., & McMahon, M. (2019). When Cute Becomes Criminal: Emoji, Threats and Online Grooming. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 21(1), 37.

11. Lidsky, L. B., & Norbut, L. R. (2018). #IU : Considering the context of online threats. California Law Review, 106, 1886, 1907–09.

12. Milott, P. M. (2017). Emojis and Emoticons in Court. The Reporter, 44(3), 67.

13. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812

14. Steiker, C., Kennedy, R., Taylor-Thompson, K., & Silverglate, H. (1999). Contemporary Challenges in the Criminal Justice System. New York Law School Law Review, 43, 79, 86.

15. Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2019). Emoticon, Emoji, and Sticker Use in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Review of Theories and Research Findings. International Journal of Communication, 13, 2457, 2468.

16. Tenzer, L. Y. G., & Cangro, A. (2022). An Emoji Legal Dictionary. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 83(5), 1. https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2022.834

17. Whitney, J., Jennex, M., Elkins, A., & Frost, E. (2018). Don’t Want to Get Caught?: Don’t Say It: The Use of EMOJIS in Online Human Sex Trafficking Ads. In Proceedings of the Fifty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4273, 4275–80). https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2018.537