Ceglia: Facebook planted a fake contract on my computer

1. Before trial, Ceglia's lawyer might file what's called a motion in limine (meaning "at the threshhold"). The motion would be a request that the judge exclude the alleged smoking-gun contract document---which I'll call the SGC document---from being introduced into evidence at trial, that is, from being given to the jury or discussed in front of the jury.

The motion likely would argue that there had been no evidentiary showing that the SGC document was what Facebook claimed it was. Ceglia's attorney would almost certainly want to put on evidence---assuming he has any---that Facebook's attorneys planted the SGC document, as Ceglia claims. That's because the judge will almost surely dismiss Ceglia's claim about evidence-planting as being mere speculation, unless someone having first-hand knowledge were to testify to that effect, or unless there's documentary evidence to that effect. (And such documentary evidence would itself have to be authenticated; it's almost a recursion problem.)

2. Whether or not Ceglia's lawyer put on evidence that the SGC document was planted, it would then be up to Facebook's attorneys to offer evidence supporting the proposition that yes, the SGC document is indeed what Facebook claims it is. They likely would do this through testimony about how they came to be in possession of the SGC document; this likely would include testimony from whoever examined the computer(s) where the SGC document was found.

Such evidence of authenticity wouldn't have to be iron-clad; it would only need to be enough that reasonable minds could agree with Facebook on that point.

3. The judge likely would rule before trial on Ceglia's motion in limine, that is on whether the jury would be allowed to see the SGC document.

If memory serves, such evidentiary rulings by a trial judge are usually reviewed by appellate courts under a very lenient standard, namely "abuse of discretion." The theory is that trial judges have to be given some leeway to manage their cases.

I can easily imagine that the judge might punt: Instead of ruling on admissibility, the judge might have the jury decide whether the SGC document was authentic.

3. Depending on what Ceglia said under oath in court (in a sworn affidavit or in testimony), he might be in danger of perjury charges.