Q: Looking for case law on using cell phones as evidence in a Virginia trial.

A: Based on Virginia case law, several significant decisions address the admissibility of cell phone evidence. In Commonwealth v. Moseley (2012), the Virginia Court of Appeals held that text messages from a cell phone were admissible when properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to the messages. This case established that direct proof of authorship isn't always required if other factors sufficiently link the defendant to the communications.

Another relevant decision is Pascale v. Commonwealth (2019), where the Virginia Supreme Court addressed chain of custody requirements for digital evidence. The court held that while strict chain of custody must be established, this standard can be met through testimony about how the device was handled, stored, and analyzed. For authentication purposes, Wilson v. Commonwealth (2017) established that cell phone records and content can be authenticated through testimony from those familiar with the defendant's phone number, texting patterns, or by context within the messages themselves.

Regarding search and seizure issues, Collins v. Commonwealth (2016) addressed warrant requirements for searching cell phones, aligning Virginia law with the U.S. Supreme Court's Riley decision requiring warrants for cell phone searches. When presenting the actual device in court, you should also reference Taylor v. Commonwealth (2021), which discussed proper procedures for showing jurors digital evidence and established guidelines for allowing jurors to examine devices during deliberations. These cases collectively provide a framework for addressing authentication, chain of custody, and presentation of cell phone evidence in Virginia courts.