Background
In January 2023, a Vermont family court issued a temporary relief-from-abuse (RFA) order prohibiting Jeremy Amidon from contacting or communicating with the complainant in any manner, whether directly, indirectly, or through third parties. The order explicitly barred telephone calls, written communication, email, and electronic messaging.
On February 10, 2023, Amidon sent a message to the complainant’s friend via a social media messaging app stating: “You can tell that slam pig [complainant’s first name] thanks for the RFA and she will regret it.” The State charged Amidon with violating the temporary RFA order. The following day, he was served with the final RFA order and a citation for violation. A jury trial was held in August 2024.
The central issue at trial was whether the State had presented sufficient evidence to prove Amidon authored the message. The defense challenged both the authentication of the message and whether the evidence demonstrated authorship beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Amidon’s conviction, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove he sent the message in violation of the RFA order. The court found the recipient’s testimony credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence. The recipient testified that he had arranged in-person meetings with Amidon using the same social media account, and Amidon had provided specific information (the names of his five children) to confirm the account belonged to him.
The message contained distinctive elements linking it to Amidon: it used “slam pig,” an uncommon term the recipient had heard Amidon use before, and it directly referenced the RFA proceedings that had just concluded that day. The court noted that Amidon typically used a password on his phone and was possessive of his electronic devices, making it unlikely someone else sent the message from his account.
The court distinguished its prior decision in State v. Allcock (2020 VT 60), which had set a stricter standard for authenticating social media evidence. Here, the State presented substantially stronger evidence: direct testimony from the message recipient about his relationship with the account, prior in-person meetings arranged through that account, and distinctive content. This evidence satisfied authentication requirements under Vermont Rule of Evidence 901.
Key Takeaways
- Social media messages can be authenticated through recipient testimony about prior communications and in-person meetings conducted via the same account, moving beyond mere account naming to establish actual authorship.
- Distinctive message content—such as uncommon terminology the defendant was known to use and specific knowledge of recent legal proceedings—strengthens authentication of electronic evidence.
- Indirect contact through third parties constitutes a violation of abuse prevention orders prohibiting contact “in any way, whether directly, indirectly, or through a third party.”
- Circumstantial evidence viewed as a whole may support conviction when a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance on authenticating social media evidence in protective order cases—an increasingly common litigation area. By clarifying what constitutes sufficient proof of authorship and distinguishing weaker from stronger corroborative evidence, the court established a practical standard for prosecutors and defense counsel. The ruling demonstrates that while social media accounts must be authenticated under the same evidentiary rules as other communications, recipient testimony about prior dealings with the account holder can provide a reliable foundation.
The decision reinforces the broad scope of abuse prevention orders, treating indirect contact through third parties as a violation when the defendant intends to communicate with the protected person. For defense practitioners, the case illustrates which evidence prosecutors may present and where authentication challenges may succeed, but makes clear that multiple corroborating factors—prior meetings arranged via account, distinctive language, timing coinciding with legal proceedings, and password protection—can create a strong circumstantial case for authorship.