——————————————————————————————————————————————
- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AFIK4333,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CM-918
Dated February 25, 2023
PRESIDING JUDGE: TONY GIORDANO
Hon. Tony_Giordano, Magistrate Judge of the Superior Court for the State of Ridgeway:
MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER
I.
Following the Defense’s motion to suppress evidence supplied by the State in the
stated case, we are now at a crossroads. I granted the motion at first, but when the State
received the assistance of the Solicitor General to counter the motion, they raised a valid
point. In State of Ridgeway v. InfinityTurtleXD, 1 Rid. ____ (2022), the Supreme Court of
Ridgeway held that the Superior Court would be “err[ing] in holding that Discord
evidence must be authenticated by a refresh of the Discord client and obtaining an ID
[sic] of the person in question.” This holding bases itself on the idea that Rule 55 of the
Rules of Evidence for the State of Ridgeway (herein “Rule 55”) “provides that self-
authentication of Discord evidence is merely optional, not a prerequisite for its
admission.” Ibid.
Rule 55 prefaces itself with, as the Supreme Court phrased it, a “parent clause.”
Ibid. The parent clauses reads, “[e]xtrinsic evidence of authenticity, as a condition
precedent to admissibility, is not required with respect to the following[.]” It proceeds to
detail potential situations or circumstances where self-authentication may not be required
due to certain caveats. The debacle now, as it did in Infinity, is with Rule 55(d). This
reads, “[a] recorded video or GIF may be made admissible and self-authenticating
without the reaffirmation of an officer. Those displaying Discord must, however,
authenticate identities through a client reload and display of Discord ID.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————
- 2 -
When interacting with any rule—whether it be statute, rule, and so on—, “we start
where we always do: with the text of the statute.” See Van Buren v. United States, 593
U.S. ____, ____ (2021) (slip op., at 5); see also Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. ____
(2023) (slip op., at 6). At first glance, it is easy to separate Rule 55(d) in two parts. First,
there is the component regarding multimedia forms of evidence—YouTube videos,
“GIFs,” and other forms of video captured through a service or platform that records such
instances. In understanding this first sentence, it is rather clear. Videos or “GIFs” do not
require the reinforcement of police testimony for this exhibit of evidence to succeed in
theory. However, the debacle arrives—as it did in Infinity—with the following,
subsequent sentence. In that, “[t]hose displaying Discord must, however, authenticate
identities through a client reload and display of Discord ID.” There is no dispute
regarding the “those displaying” phrase. This is simply a phrase that refers to “videos or
GIFs” that would be recording—now in this instance—Discord-based instances that are
relevant to the case under review.
My personal wrestling match is with the predicate of the supplementary sentence:
“must.” The Supreme Court opined that “the rule provides that self-authentication of
Discord evidence is merely optional.” I find no linguistic basis or tool of statutory
interpretation to support this holding. The language is quite clear. I understand Rule 55(d)
to say that, indeed, an individual may use recorded videos (e.g., a YouTube video, etc.) or
GIFs as admissible forms of evidence, and they do not require an officer’s support of
these forms for these kinds of evidence to hold merit in a court of law. It is the following
sentence that operates as a “but” sentence. I understand and read it to say, in summary,
that if an individual wishes to submit a video or a GIF, but it consists of Discord-based
content, then it must (see Rule 55(d)) have a “client reload and display of Discord
[identification].” Ibid.
It was the argument of the State in Infinity that the usage of “may” was the
primary verb of Rule 55(d)—as a whole rule, not as a rule with two-fold instructions or
——————————————————————————————————————————————
- 3 -
means of guidance. See Appellant’s Brief1, p. 6. However, context counts and matters2 in
times of uncertainty with statutory understanding and application. The Supreme Court,
though, was fixated on the phrase of “[e]xtrinsic evidence of authenticity.” So much so,
they relied on two dictionaries3 to make sense of it all. See Infinity, (Powell, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (citing American Heritage Dictionary 629
(5th ed. 2016) and New Oxford American Dictionary 615 (3d ed. 2010)).
However, that phrase regarding extrinsic evidence is all but irrelevant in this
dispute. The conflict is whether the evidence submitted to the court is sufficient in light
of the Infinity decision. However, now that the Court has held that it is optional—based
on no stated criteria from the Court—, then I am left to handle the matter per my own
understanding of Rule 55(d)—which I take to understand that Discord-based evidence,
while it does not require the re-affirmation of an officer, it “must,” ibid, have a “client
reload and display of Discord ID.”
I hold this conclusion through a plain reading of Rule 55(d) in its whole sense but
with an analytical approach. It is the goal of both Rule 54 and 55 of the Rules of
Evidence to discuss the authentication as well as the identification of submitted evidence
into a court of law. See Title Nine – Authentication and Identification. These rules are
paired together; they are to complete a shared task. Rule 54 prescribes that if a party
claims that a piece of evidence is such an item, they must provide proof to reinforce this
claim. For example, if a party claims that a knife was used to harm or take the life of
another individual, they must provide supplementary evidence to confirm that it is, in
1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IKZZUXrSTh3wGGs9hNwLXz9x1oQMJzal/view
2 “Context counts…,” see Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. ____ (2023) (slip op., at 10); see also “[c]ontext matters…,” James
C. Phillips, Daniel M. Ortner, & Thomas R. Lee, Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool To Make
Originalism More Empirical, 126 Yale L.J. F. 21 (2016). We have to be mindful of context in given situations; it is the goal of
each sentence to complete its own objective. Admittedly, yes, some sentences may share the same goal; however, their
construction can lead to their own demise. If we are mindful of the construction, then, and only then, can we head into the
adjudicative stages of interpretation and review with ease.
3 “First, while dictionaries are a good starting point, when faced with dueling plausible meanings, dictionaries cannot solve the
dilemma of ambiguity because they only tell whether “a particular meaning is linguistically permissible[.]” See James C. Phillips,
Daniel M. Ortner, & Thomas R. Lee, Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool To Make Originalism More
Empirical, 126 Yale L.J. F. 21 (2016); see also Henry M. Hart, Jr. & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the
Making and Application of Law 1375-76 (William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey eds., 1994) (“Unabridged dictionaries are
historical records (as reliable as the judgment and industry of the editors) of the meanings with which words have in fact been
used by writers of good repute. They are often useful in answering hard questions of whether, in an appropriate context, a
particular meaning is linguistically permissible.” (emphasis added)).
——————————————————————————————————————————————
- 4 -
fact, a knife in question and not a very sharp pencil that is being used as a substitute (e.g.,
providing a picture of a knife from a weapon store or dispensary, so the items can be
compared based on similar characteristics).
The purpose of Rule 55 describes ways that evidence does not require
supplementary forms of evidence to verify that the evidence is, in fact, valid at face
value. The Court in Infinity suggests—both in its majority opinion as well as the
concurrence of Justice Powell—that “the purpose of [Rule 55] is not to prohibit, but to
expand the possibilities for establishing authenticity” (punctuation omitted); see also
“Rule 55(d)’s purpose is to afford broad discretion to trial judges as to whether Discord
evidence is admissible, not incorporate a strict all-or-nothing mandate.” (Powell, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in judgment). The Court relies on the author’s
intentions—a more originalistic approach. However, the stronger way to ensure that the
originalist approach is a safe approach, as it usually is, is to rely on corpus linguistics.
This methodology permits the adjudicator to rely on the linguistic nature of a text in
question, and we can begin to understand how one would interact with that text as it
would have been understood by the people of the text’s ratification. The Rules of
Evidence were published only a year ago. While very young, this method of engaging
with the text and, thus, prompting a closer read of such allows us to utilize other modern-
day tools of statutory interpretation—noscitur a sociis or in pari materia.
To make better sense of this rule, it would be the better buy to go with the latter
tool in this situation; we can make light of the rule by also evaluating Rule 54, which I
have already done. This interpretation finds additional support in the common canon of
statutory construction that similar statutes are to be construed similarly (also known by its
Latin label of in pari materia). See, e.g., Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 126
S.Ct. 941, 943-44, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006) (“[U]nder the in pari materia canon, statutes
addressing the same subject matter generally should be read ‘as if they were one law.’”)
(citations omitted); Cook v. Wikler, 320 F.3d 431, 434 (3d Cir.2003) (applying the in pari
materia canon). If I read Rule 54 and Rule 55 as if they were one law, I come to the
——————————————————————————————————————————————
- 5 -
consensus that the title of Title Nine does for me: they discuss authentication and
identification.
If I were to dissect Rule 55(d) to be understood on its own accord and only
evaluate the matter under dispute, I am looking at the second sentence: “[t]hose
displaying Discord must, however, authenticate identities through a client reload and
display of Discord [identification].” Ibid. I take Rule 55(d) to say “what it means and
means what is says,” thus rendering judicial inquiry complete upon a plain-reading of the
statute. Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992) (citing United
States v. Ron Pair Enters, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242-42 (1989); United States v.
Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102-03 (1897); Oneale v. Thornton, 10 U.S. 53, 68 (1810)).
There is no room to “broaden” the possibilities of evidence submission under this
rule, as the Supreme Court desires. Nothing in the rule could support that conclusion.
However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court did not conduct a closer reading
of the text, and they elected to conjure a reading that would be more progressive than the
rule plainly allows. Since the Supreme Court did, in fact, allow it to be optional—based
on an absent criteria—, they ultimately left it to the judges of the Superior Court—by
extension the magistrates—to determine whether the evidence ought to be accepted either
in compliance with this rule or not. See State of Ridgeway v. InfinityTurtleXD, 1 Rid.
____ (2022) (“If the authors of the rules intended for Rule 55 to be used for Discord
evidence, it would have been done so with an imperative command, not an optional
requirement in a rule otherwise designed for efficiency.”). Because Rule 55(d) does, in
fact, use an imperative command (see Rule 55(d) “[t]hose displaying Discord must…”),
the Defense’s motion to suppress is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
- 6 -
DATED: February 25th, 2023 /s/ Tony_Giordano
————————————————
TONY GIORDANO
Magistrate Judge
Superior Court
State of Ridgeway
