Can a review be used as evidence in a civil case?

I've read Shyster's post on "Can a review be used as evidence in a prostitution case?"http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=361062

But I'm wondering about whether they can be used in civil cases as well (ie. divorce, custody, etc...)

Are the rules of evidence the same or is there a different standard? And let's assume there's no admission.

Evidence for all court proceedings is pretty much the same (with subtle variations from state to state and from state to federal court), with some special cases where the rule itself expressly says whether it applies to only criminal or civil matters. No evidence is admissible without its sponsor proving foundation (that it really is what it purports to be - for example, "this really was a post on an escort review board drafted and sent by the husband"), relevance (i.e., "it really does tend to prove that the guy either hired an escort or at least consorted with ne'er-do-wells who do, and that fact has legal weight given the issues presented in the case") and non-hearsay. Hearsay is a complicated enough idea that it doesn't fit neatly into a parenthetical with quotes around it.

Having said that, foundation and relevance are probably going to be the first hurdles in most scenarios that I can run through my head at the moment. If the judge cares which of you is a philandering dickhead (for example, if he doesn't want kids exposed to "bad characters" in a custody dispute, and he thinks bliss for hire is relevant to that inquiry) then the relevance hurdle might be easy enough to surmount. It is difficult to prove that it was really you who wrote the post, or hung around this little e-village of ours, but there are experts out there who can do enough legwork to get your hard drive, or your ISP, or whatever other voodoo they do to cross into foundation land. They don't work cheap, so there would have to be lots of money at stake, and your opponent would have to be willing to make a commitment to fish for information that way. If you have other unsavory habits, it might be more tempting to find another cheaper way to besmirch you.

So yes, there is always some risk that something you post here could end up in a big blow-up exhibit in a courtroom in your divorce or custody action. Considering: (a) how expensive it would be to do that; (b) how little most judges (at least in Dallas County - I make no representation about the attitudes of Nevada judges) care about where you post stories about where you pud has been; (c) how much easier it would be to just tail your ass and get incriminating information in other ways; and (d) how seldom all this seems to show up in courthouses, I would think that the chances of it are pretty low. Of course, if the Missus is trying to break a pre-nup to get at Jerry Jones kind of money, then the incentives to break this board are much greater, and you should consider using your millions to get a regular stable of high-dollar hotties and forgo posting about your exploits here.

Not that we wouldn't all enjoy hearing about it, Jerry. [NOTE: I am NOT outing slowlick as Jerry Jones. I'm not even Jerry is reading this board. I don't even KNOW Jerry Jones. Well, not that well, anyway. So PLEASE don't issue me points. It's just a joke. No, really - I'm just kidding.)

Hope that's helpful.

Anything found on the internet, such as reviews and ads, are hear say. If your lawyer is good, they would argue that they have to catch you in the act. Or, that someone is using your info to post. Stealing pictures. Hacked your IP address. And so forth. I know several lawyers, that I pay a retainer fee, and they've told me the same thing. At the end of the day, it comes down to how much you pay your lawyer. The more you pay them, they more they pay the judge. I can give you their numbers if you would like.

Sorry to disagree with you, but not everything on the Internet is hearsay. Nothing on the Internet is "hearsay" as such unless and until it is offered in a trial or other hearing for purpose of proving the truth of the matters stated. For some purposes, proof of the truth of the statement is less than proof that the statement was made. For example, Mr. Jones wants custody of his impressionable pre-teen twin sons, but the wife contends that Mr. Jones is morally unfit to raise the boys in the good Morman way that she bore them. If wifey's lawyer can lay a foundation that Mr. Jones has 14 reviews on Eccie, and 723 total posts mostly commenting on how delicious 19-year-old boobies look, it doesn't matter whether any of the reviews are true, or whether 19-year-old boobies are delicious. (They generally are, but that's beside the point.) The fact he's hanging out in our beautiful little e-universe is proof enough that he lacks proper Morman morality.

Further, by definition a statement is not hearsay if it is an admission by a party opponent. In Mr. Jones' divorce or custody action, I would certainly argue that a review post is an admission of some kind of hanky-panky, especially if the issue is whether to enforce a pre-nuptial agreement that would give the future ex-Missus Jones half of the Cowboys. (I'll bet she takes DeMarco Murray and leaves Jermey Parnell.)

Still further, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay by definition if it is offered in court to rebut inconsistent testimony by the guy who supposedly made the out of court statement. For example, if Mr. Jones claims his pre-nup is enforceable because he didn't cheat on his wife, the opposing lawyer then can introduce eight reviews that would have been hearsay without Mr. Jones' testimony, because the inconsistent testimony makes the reviews non-hearsay by definition. To set that up, Mrs. Jones' lawyer only has to ask, "Mr. Jones, admit that you've had sex with at least eight prostitutes in the last three months." Jones can either admit it's true (case over, Cowboys to wifey) or he can deny it, and make the reviews admissible over a hearsay objection.

Even further with the furthers, if a statement is hearsay by definition (meaning it doesn't fit one of the categories above) there are oodles and scads of hearsay exceptions -- instances in which the court will admit even a hearsay statement, because the rules presume it might be true even if it is hearsay. For example, if Mr. Jones' review says something like, "Holy jizz-buckets, Batman, when she dropped her towel and revealed that svelte body, I nearly came like a fire hose right then and there!!!!!!!" I would certainly argue that that statement fit within the "excited utterance" exception.

So I'll stick with my original premise, that the bigger objections to admissibility of our prose on this board are foundation (proving it was really me that wrote this wonderful treatise on hearsay law) and relevance (but honestly, it don't mean a thing 'cause I ain't got that schwing.")

I agree with Stag's analysis regarding hearsay.

Anything found on the internet, such as reviews and ads, are hear say. If your lawyer is good, they would argue that they have to catch you in the act. Or, that someone is using your info to post. Stealing pictures. Hacked your IP address. And so forth. I know several lawyers, that I pay a retainer fee, and they've told me the same thing. At the end of the day, it comes down to how much you pay your lawyer. The more you pay them, they more they pay the judge. I can give you their numbers if you would like. Originally Posted by Purple Heart Companions

I think this post is problematic in a number of areas. I'll list two:

1. The writer implies that outcomes in court are determined by lawyers bribing judges. I guess that happens, but to assert it's the norm, or even common, is ludicrous. I work hard for my clients, but I wouldn't risk disbarment by bribing judges for favorable outcomes.

2. The writer, who I assume is not a lawyer, listened to lawyers and tries to reconstruct what they said. As a lawyer, I can tell you without limitation that the OP didn't understand what her lawyers said about the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence from the internet. It's usually not a good idea to try to reconstruct a professional's opinion from memory because errors often occur. If a member's attorney has a relevant opinion, the attorney should post it his- or herself.

I don't mean to sound harsh. But too many members spout nonsense in the legal forum and I think that could create harm if someone relied on such B.S. to their detriment.

...I don't mean to sound harsh. But too many members spout nonsense in the legal forum and I think that could create harm if someone relied on such B.S. to their detriment. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

The legal forum is only one of many forums where members spout nonsense.

I do think that too many people get their legal advice from Uncle Vinny and Judge Judy rather than relying on a lawyer in their jurisdiction.

Wow, to get an "I'll agree with that" from the great ShysterJon -- I may have to put that on my resume. Thanks, Counselor.

And I'll also offer a "follow you" to tigercat's comment. I do think this forum is good for general education for legal topics of interest to our little hobby, but it is far too easy to find misinformation when folks who only assume they know the law comment on it anyway. And even the most erudite posters in this topic (for example, the esteemed ShysterJon) can only opine in general, and the specifics of any particular case or situation can always change the general analysis radically -- and I'm pretty sure ShysterJon would agree with that, too. So when and if it ever comes down to the nut-cutting, follow tigercat's advice, and rely on a lawyer in your jurisdiction, who can look at all the facts, and apply those facts to the whole applicable law.

(BTW -- I didn't rise to the bait of commenting on whether there's widespread bribery of judges, and Shyster put it more eloquently than I would have anyway. It's true that better lawyers sometimes beat lesser lawyers in court even justice would seem to a casual observer to require a different outcome. But I've never actually met a lawyer who makes so much money lawyering that he can afford to put all the judges in his pocket, like the lovely Purple Heart suggests. I have many complaints how we qualify judges, but outright bribery? It's just too rare to be worth considering.)

I've read Shyster's post on "Can a review be used as evidence in a prostitution case?"http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=361062

But I'm wondering about whether they can be used in civil cases as well (ie. divorce, custody, etc...)

Are the rules of evidence the same or is there a different standard? And let's assume there's no admission. Originally Posted by slowlick

Well without reading any of the other posts, Iam just wondering don't you think a prosecuting Attny would view a review of a prostitute as possibly incriminating. Even if a review in any particular jurisdiction wouldn't be admissable in court as evidence. I think the prosecution could possible find a review valuable as leverage.

Family court is based on heresay! In family court , anyone can say anything . Pics and reviews just seal the deal in Family court! YOU have to defend or dispute it! Be careful ! FAMILY COURT IS NOT CRIMINAL COURT.Know that! Ask your criminal attorney about proving INTENT ( prostitution). Now there , you need a witness... a reviewer perhaps that has a lot to lose.. his family etc. Be Careful Dont play if you cant pay.

Paris,

I think there are some distinctions to be made.

A review, in of itself, does not prove much. Can the review be tied to a person. For instance, can a soon to be ex-wife prove it was her husband that actually wrote the review and had the session? That may be difficult to prove. Who is to say that the ex-wife did not create the review herslef to use as evidence against her hubby. Going to take a lot of digging to prove the ex-husband wrote the review, and that the fantasy described actually happened.

Same thing goes for a review and the provider. Can you prove it was her?

Now, skip to the next step. You have pictures of the provider, no doubt, can identify by face pictures, by tattoos, etc. Pictures show the lady in all of her fine glory, with a penis in her mouth, with a white, sticky goo all over her face, etc. Now, that is probably going to be admitted as evidence, going to hurt her case in a child custody probably. Does a jury of 12 people think that a person who is engaging in this type of activity would be the best parent solution, in the best interest of the child?

Original poster was a guy. Most of us don't go plastering our faces and even our non-descript body parts all over a review. Proving it was us is much more technically difficult. Proving it was not someone trying to frame us is very difficult.

For a lady, her pics may be all over the internet. Naked. Involved in sex acts. Legs spread eagle. Sure, someone may have stole her pics, added the verbiage to the ad. But she still posed for the pics. Not going to help her case much even if you convinve a jury that she never intended to perform sex acts with strangers she met on the internet.

This is why I would never fault a lady for hiding her face, for being as discreet as possible. And why I prefer, if I am seen in public with a lady, to not have her face plastered all over the internet. Guilt by association, jumping to conclusions, call it what you want. The transition from street walking to internet pandering removes certain risks and substitutes other risks in their place.

I do think too many people, especially the young ladies, do not understand what the long term consequences of exposing their lives to this world may do when they try to move on to the next chapter of their lives.

Employers today employ many different strategies to screen employees. There are a lot of people applying, how do they cut the list down to a manageable number? I spoke to a human resource manager a few years ago. He was appalled at what he had learned about a candidate from her facebook page. He never told me what it was, did she post pictures on her page showing her drinking? Doing drugs? Did she have some risque pictures, did she brag about her sexual exploits, her party skills? I don't know. He never even provided me her resume to consider hiring. She failed to get past his cursory investigation.

How many times have we heard about the lack of credit-worthiness of our providers here? Again, this is a basic screening method employers are using these days. So, the gal who is "just" providing until she gets a college degree may be digging a hole for herself.

Sorry for the hijack of sorts.I will get off my soapbox.

If wifey's lawyer can lay a foundation that Mr. Jones has 14 reviews on Eccie, and 723 total posts mostly commenting on how delicious 19-year-old boobies look, it doesn't matter whether any of the reviews are true, or whether 19-year-old boobies are delicious. (They generally are, but that's beside the points.) Originally Posted by Stag

fify

Paris,

I think there are some distinctions to be made.

A review, in of itself, does not prove much. Can the review be tied to a person. For instance, can a soon to be ex-wife prove it was her husband that actually wrote the review and had the session? That may be difficult to prove. Who is to say that the ex-wife did not create the review herslef to use as evidence against her hubby. Going to take a lot of digging to prove the ex-husband wrote the review, and that the fantasy described actually happened.. Originally Posted by tigercat

All it takes is for one of the review subjects to be brought into family court for testimony and the rest is history. When you really think about it, we owe a lot to these ladies' discretion.

All it takes is for one of the review subjects to be brought into family court for testimony and the rest is history. When you really think about it, we owe a lot to these ladies' discretion. Originally Posted by YoursTruly

Yes, we do. We often complain about the hourly rate these ladies charge, but think of it in two ways, first is the old saying, we don't pay for these ladies to come to us, we pay for them to leave.

The more appropriate comment here is that we pay for their discretion. More than anything else, this is why I am generally willing to pay a little more, to buy a lady's discretion and for her to keep her mouth shut. (Unless of course she has a small appendage of mine in her mouth, then please do not clamp your mouth shut.)

Yes, we do. We often complain about the hourly rate these ladies charge, but think of it in two ways, first is the old saying, we don't pay for these ladies to come to us, we pay for them to leave.

The more appropriate comment here is that we pay for their discretion. More than anything else, this is why I am generally willing to pay a little more, to buy a lady's discretion and for her to keep her mouth shut. (Unless of course she has a small appendage of mine in her mouth, then please do not clamp your mouth shut.) Originally Posted by tigercat

Plus 1!