Online communications and the bots that power them are getting smarter by the day, and they are also getting more personable. An increasing number of people have started relying on Chat GPT and its kin to draft not only boring emails and legal boilerplate but also heartfelt messages to congratulate acquaintances on their newfound successes or offer them condolences for the death of a family member or friend. There are even scary stories online about people who have started to prefer the virtual friendship of chatbots to the humanly awkward companionship of human friends. Human journalists, with the help of their AI assistants, always have a field day when hapless humans publish or transmit a piece of AI slop without removing the part where the robotic author refers to its robotic nature, when the bots say things like, “I am a mere bot, but here is a message of heartfelt condolences for your boss on the death of his mother-in-law.” Bots can do so much, but they do not warn you of your right to avoid self-incrimination when you are posting online.
If you posted messages online, and the state now wants to present them as evidence that you publicly confessed to your involvement in a crime, contact a Texas criminal defense lawyer.
The Internet Does Not Read You the Miranda Warnings, but Maybe It Should
A Texas woman is facing charges for felony theft because a video posted online purports to show her stealing items from a neighbor’s porch. The defendant posted a response to the original posting, and now the prosecution is interpreting it as evidence that the defendant is admitting that she is the person who appears in her neighbor’s surveillance camera video footage.
The defendant in this case may be able to cast doubt on whether the video connects her to the crime. She might argue that the person in the video is not her and that in her posting, she was responding to a false accusation. She might also argue that there is another plausible interpretation of her posting.
Defendants are in a strong position on the state’s justification to convict them if they can argue that the state coerced them into making self-incriminating statements. For example, if a police officer does not read the Miranda warnings when arresting a defendant, the defendant can convincingly argue that any statements the defendant made during the ensuing questioning are inadmissible. Social media postings, whether in the form of words, images, emojis, or any combination thereof, are an increasing presence in the evidence exhibits in criminal cases. We can only imagine how many defendants could avoid conviction, or even avoid being charged at all, if websites warned defendants that anything they say online could become evidence against them in the hands of the prosecution.
Contact Law Office of Patrick J. McLain, PLLC, About Criminal Defense Cases
A Dallas criminal defense lawyer can help you if you are facing criminal charges because of statements you made in a social media posting. Contact the Law Office of Patrick J. McLain, PLLC in Dallas, Texas to discuss your case.