Scribd

OVERVIEW

On October 21, 2010, the Defendant-Appellant, Teri Buhl, was arrested pursuantto a warrant charging her with violations of C.G.S.§ 53a–183(a)(2) (Harassment in theSecond Degree), C.G.S.§ 53a-181(a)(4) (Breach of Peace) and C.G.S.§ 53a-167a(Interfering With an Officer). The arrest was precipitated by reports from twocomplainants, Meagan Brody (“Ms. Brody”) and her father Paul Brody (“Mr. Brody”),who told the police that .somebody identified as “Tasha Moore” posted material onFacebook containing statements about Ms. Brody, along with pictures of various diaryentries. Police were also informed that an anonymous package containing copies of Ms. Brody’s diary pages was sent to Mr. Brody. The Defendant pled “not guilty” tothese charges and elected a Bench Trial.On May 2, 2012, the Defendant-Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss theInformation and a motion pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). TheCourt heard the Motions on or about July 23, 2012. The Court (Hon. Dennis J.) deniedthe same on September 25, 2012. Thereafter, the Defendant proceeded to a BenchTrial (Hon. Wenzel J. presiding) on March 22, 2013.During the one day Trial, the State led evidence in the form of (1) a posting by“Tasha Moore”, (2) the contents of a package received by Mr. Brody, (3) evidenceregarding the contents of the package received by Mr. Brody, (4) testimony of Ms.Brody and Mr. Brody, (5) testimony of the investigating officers, and (5) testimony of aCablevision Representative pertaining to the Defendant’s “IP address.” The State never positively identified the Defendant as “Tasha Moore,” or otherwise established the “IPaddress” as linked to “Tasha Moore’s” Facebook account. Furthermore, the State didnot call a Facebook representative, or any expert that was qualified to testify about

2

Facebook mechanics. Ironically, the State’s failure to do so, ignored the Court’spurported admonitions that it was wholly unfamiliar with Facebook — that it did notknow or understand how Facebook worked.The Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts at the close of theState’s case, however, the same was denied. Trial Counsel elected not to put on acase, and after closing arguments the Court found the Defendant guilty of Harassmentin the Second Degree, and Breach of Peace, but acquitted her of the Interfering charge.Post Verdict Motions to Set Aside and New Trial were filed, and the same were heardand denied on April 4, 2013Thereafter, the Court sentenced the Defendant to three months incarceration,suspended after fifteen (15) days, and one year probation on the Harassment Count,and six months incarceration executed suspended after fifteen (15) days, with one year probation on the Breach of Peace Count. The Court further ordered these sentences torun consecutive with each other for a total effective sentence of nine monthsincarceration, execution suspended after thirty days followed, by one year probation.The Defendant had no prior record at the time of sentencing. This Appeal followed.

FACTS

A. The Defendant

At the time of the events leading to the Defendant’s arrest and prosecution, theDefendant was a journalist. See Tr. 3/22/13, at 57. More specifically, she was aninvestigative journalist who worked for “various publications” including Greenwich Time.Id. Moreover, at the time of the events leading to her arrest, the Defendant was workingon an investigative report about underage drinking that was going on in New Canaan,

3

Connecticut. Tr. 3/22/13, at 70-71. The evidence revealed that, in or about the sametime period, the Defendant was involved in a romantic relationship with Mr. Brody. Tr.3/22/13, at 45,, for approximately two years. Tr. 3/22/13, at 54. Their relationship wasa “good” one, and the Defendant would occasionally spend time at Mr. Brody’s home.Tr. 3/22/13, at 45, 54. According to the evidence there was no animosity between theDefendant and Mr. Brody. Tr. 3/22/13, at 54.

B. Facebook Posts

The evidence also established that sometime in June of 2010, after high-schoolgraduation, Ms. Brody returned home from a dinner at a friend’s house. Tr. 3/22/13, at10. She was planning to change her clothes and then go “hang out” with her friends. Tr.3/22/13, at 10-11. When she came home, Ms. Brody received a phone call from afriend who told her that he had seen “a fake Facebook profile about [her].” Id. Thisfriend saw the “fake” Facebook profile, as a result of being “friended” by the profile’sowner who was listed as “Tasha Moore).” Tr. 3/22/13, at 18. Subsequently, Ms. Brodyused a friend’s Facebook profile, not her own, to access the “fake” profile andinvestigate her friend’s claim. Tr. 3/22/13 at 24.

1

Ms. Brody was never invited or “friended” by the owner of this “fake” Facebook profile, to view any contents or postings.Tr. 3/22/13, at 24. Such an invitation would have needed to be undertaken privately. Tr.3/22/13, at 25.



1



According to Ms. Brody, even the copies of the Facebook postings that she eventuallytook to the police were probably printed through her friend’s Facebook page, and nother own. Tr. 3/22/13, at 39.



2

The trial exhibits reveal that the pages contained Ms. Brody’s account of a party shewas at where alcohol was served to minors, as well as her behavior at that party.

