In Ex-Prosecutor Disbarred For Fabricating Harassing Texts – Law360 (Jan. 7, 2025), Thy Vo reported on a fabrication of evidence case.
The decision, State of Colorado vs. Yujin Choi, No 24PDJ019, is not yet posted on Recent Disciplinary Decisions – Colorado Supreme Court.
The Law 360 article reports that the former prosecutor was terminated in 2022 for creating text messages that made it appear as if a co-worker was harassing her. Later, she was disbarred.
Adell Hassan reported in Ex-Prosecutor Ordered Disbarred After Framing Colleague for Sexual Harassment – The New York Times (Jan. 8, 2025), that:
The former prosecutor, Yujin Choi, faked receiving text messages, altered her cellphone records and, during the investigation, destroyed her laptop and phone, according to a 26-page ruling by Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge released on Dec. 31.
The article noted that the former prosecutor still has a right to appeal. “Ms. Choi’s casework was later found to be in ‘excellent order,’ with no evidence of fabrications, the district attorney’s office said.” Id.
Initially, Ms. Choi complained of an alleged inappropriate comment. The investigation was closed as unsubstantiated. Id. The N.Y. Times article continued:
In October 2022, Ms. Choi said that Mr. Hines sent her four inappropriate text messages. While she provided screenshots of the messages, questions about their authenticity quickly surfaced.
The first text had a time stamp that was about 40 minutes after Ms. Choi had already reported it to her superiors, according to the ruling.
The alleged harasser, Mr. Hines, demanded a forensic search of his phone. “A forensic search of his phone did not show any communication between his number and Ms. Choi’s, according to the ruling.” Id.
The alleged harasser, Mr. Hines, demanded a forensic search of his phone. “A forensic search of his phone did not show any communication between his number and Ms. Choi’s, according to the ruling.” Ex-Prosecutor Disbarred For Fabricating Harassing Texts – Law360 (Jan. 7, 2025).
It is often recommended – – especially with emojis – – that both the sending and receiving cell phone be examined.
The New York Times article continued:
The investigation further revealed that Ms. Choi had texted the inappropriate messages to herself. In addition, she changed the name in her phone to make it appear as though Mr. Hines was the one who had sent them.
The investigation found that Ms. Choi downloaded and altered a spreadsheet containing her Verizon message logs before she provided those records to investigators.
The weekend before her phone and laptop were to be examined for evidence of the alleged misconduct by Mr. Hines, Ms. Choi told investigators that her phone had fallen into her bathtub after she had drawn herself a bath and put her phone on a tray.
She said that she dried it right away but found that it was not working. She then went to her desk to make a video call to a colleague, according to the ruling. After the call, still in a panic over her phone, she knocked over a bottle, spilling water on her laptop, and leaving that disabled as well.
The Colorado decision reportedly stated:
“In our view, this narrative is not plausible,” the court office said, finding that Ms. Choi had destroyed both electronic devices.
Id.; see C. Sweetman, Former Denver Prosecutor Disbarred After Framing Colleague for Sexual Harassment – Key Takeaways – ILG – Investigations Law Group (Jan. 8, 2025).
“That initial false accusation set off a years-long ordeal for Hines that damaged his reputation and overall well-being, he said Friday. He filed a lawsuit against Denver District Attorney Beth McCann last month.” S. Bradbury, Fired Denver prosecutor to be disbarred after framing colleague for sexual harassment (Jan. 3, 2025).
“The Denver District Attorney’s Office referred the case to the Larimer County District Attorney’s Office in December 2022, and prosecutors there declined to press charges against Choi.” Id.
In Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, 2021 WL 3421569(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded, 81 F.4th 124 (2d Cir. 2023), the court addressed a fabricated text message asserting sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge by an employer.
“The principal evidence in support of Rossbach’s sexual harassment claims was a series of sexually suggestive text messages that she alleged were from Morales.” 81 F.4th at 131.
Following the submission of forensic expert reports, an evidentiary hearing, and briefing on the motion, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Rossbach had fabricated the text messages, falsely testified about their production, and spoliated evidence in an attempt to conceal her wrongdoing.
Rossbach contended that the messages were received on her iPhone 5 and due to screen cracks and other issues, she could produce only a photograph of them.
Montefiore requested the original file of the text message document and Rossbach produced the image in JPEG format. Montefiore engaged a forensic expert to examine the file. The expert concluded that the document was a forgery based on the document’s inconsistency with Rossbach’s testimony and nonconformity with iPhone text message characteristics.
The expert, Daniel L. Regard, II, J.D., M.B.A., of iDiscovery Solutions, produced a detailed and extensive report. 2021 WL 4103861. “At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court read into the record its findings that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rossbach had fabricated the document at issue, given false testimony about its production, and spoliated evidence in an effort to conceal the fabrication.” 81 F.4th at 134.
First, the district court found that the characteristics of the document were inconsistent with Rossbach’s account of its creation. The district court cited, as conflicting and incredible, Rossbach’s testimony about a cracked screen versus a flickering screen with an ink bleed, and the fact that the image of the text messages—which Rossbach represented to be a photograph of her iPhone 5’s screen—did not depict any of these defects. Second, the district court accepted Montefiore’s expert’s testimony that the purportedly original file did not have the metadata associated with a photograph taken on an iPhone X. Moreover, analysis of the image “indicate[d] that it [was] not a photograph at all.” … Third, the district court found, based on the same expert’s testimony, that the document did not depict text messages as they would appear on an iPhone 5 (or, in fact, any iPhone), due to differences in the appearance of icons and contact information, font size and style, and emoji design…. The district court also determined that Rossbach spoliated evidence by refusing to provide the correct passcode for her iPhone 5 and by disposing of her iPhone X during the pendency of the litigation.
The District Court dismissed Rossbach’s complaint with prejudice and imposed sanctions. Dismissal was affirmed but some other sanctions were not, based on procedural grounds. Id. at 136; see D. Austin, Plaintiff’s Fabrication of Emoji and Text Evidence Leads to Case Dismissal (Aug. 19, 2021).
It goes without saying that all alleged evidence should be carefully analyzed. P. Levchuck, Former Pikesville HS principal files lawsuit over AI audio clip (Jan. 9, 2025)(“Eric Eiswert, the former principal of Pikesville High School, is taking legal action almost a year after his voice was allegedly used in an AI-generated audio clip containing a litany of hate speech.”); T. Karpovich, SUN: Suspect in racist AI recording case, BCPS sued by former Pikesville High principal (Jan. 9, 2025)(“The former principal of Pikesville High School whose voice was allegedly imitated in a racist, AI-generated recording is now suing Baltimore County Public Schools, the athletic director charged in the case and other BCPS employees…. Eric Eiswert filed the suit in Baltimore County Circuit Court on Tuesday, alleging former athletic director Dazhon Darien and other school officials disseminated the fake audio clip to students and others, ‘causing it to spread rapidly’ on social media and receive ‘millions of views,’ according to court documents.”).
See more »
© EDRM – Electronic Discovery Reference Model
Refine your interests »
Back to Top
Explore 2024 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © JD Supra, LLC

source