When Text Messages Become Harassing Conduct

Text messages are the defence’s favourite exhibit.

They look casual. Informal. Harmless. A few words on a screen rarely feel like misconduct when viewed in isolation. That is exactly why they are dangerous.

Because harassment does not live in individual messages.
It lives in patterns.

And text messages are one of the clearest ways jurors see those patterns once you show them how.

The Mistake Lawyers Make With Text Evidence

Many lawyers introduce text messages as corroboration. Something to support testimony. Something that “backs up” what already happened.

That approach undersells their power.

Text messages are not supporting evidence. They are the conduct.

Jurors understand texts differently than formal communications. They see them as personal, immediate, and intrusive. A text does not wait for business hours. It follows you home. It arrives uninvited. It demands attention.

Once jurors understand that, the medium itself starts doing the work.

Context Is Everything

Defence lawyers isolate messages because isolation feels safe.

One message asking how someone is doing.
One message late at night.
One message checking in again.

None of those look problematic standing alone.

But jurors do not experience texts one at a time. They experience them as interruptions. As pressure. As presence.

When you show jurors that messages arrived after hours, during weekends, repeatedly, and without a work-related purpose, the tone changes. The issue is no longer what was said. It is why the communication did not stop.

Harassment emerges not from language, but from persistence.

Frequency Turns Communication Into Control

Jurors intuitively understand this principle. People who mean well respect silence.

When texts continue after non-responses, delayed replies, or explicit requests to stop, jurors do not see friendliness. They see disregard.

This is where timelines become essential again. When jurors see the number of messages increasing, the gaps shrinking, and the responses becoming more personal, they stop evaluating content and start evaluating behaviour.

At that point, the defence argument that nothing offensive was said feels beside the point.

Power Changes the Meaning of a Text

A text message from a peer is not the same as a text message from a supervisor.

Jurors understand that without explanation.

When the sender controls schedules, evaluations, recommendations, or access to opportunities, every message carries weight. Even neutral language can feel obligatory when it comes from someone with authority.

This is why defence arguments about tone often fail. Jurors are not asking whether the text sounds polite. They are asking whether the recipient could ignore it without consequence.

If the answer is no, the message has already crossed a line.

Texts Collapse the Credibility Defence

Witnesses forget conversations. They misremember words. They hedge.

Text messages do none of that.

They are timestamped. Preserved. Unedited. They show exactly when communication happened and how often.

In closing, this allows you to shift the jury’s focus away from memory and toward behaviour. Even if jurors question how someone felt in the moment, they trust what the record shows.

A phone that lights up at 11:30 p.m. three nights in a row tells its own story.

Closing Argument Is Where Texts Become Conduct

During trial, text messages are often introduced piecemeal. One exhibit at a time. One exchange at a time.

In closing, you give them meaning.

You show jurors the arc. The escalation. The refusal to stop. You place the messages on a timeline and let jurors see what the defence has tried to fragment.

At that point, jurors are no longer deciding whether the texts were inappropriate. They are deciding whether the conduct was reasonable.

It rarely looks that way when laid out clearly.

Where Trial Lawyers Learn to Use Text Evidence Effectively

Using text messages well in closing is not about dramatic readings or tone policing. It is about sequencing, restraint, and knowing when to let the evidence speak.

This is the type of trial craft we focus on inside Evidence at Trial. The emphasis is not on admissibility. Experienced lawyers already know how to get texts into evidence. The focus is on how jurors interpret digital conduct once they see the full picture.

Members often rethink how they use text evidence not by adding more argument, but by subtracting commentary and letting patterns do the persuading.

If that kind of practical, jury-focused analysis is useful to you, you can learn more about the Evidence at Trial membership here:
https://www.evidenceattrial.com/membership

Text messages become harassing conduct the moment jurors stop reading them as words and start seeing them as behaviour.

Harassment does not require explicit language. It requires intrusion that persists, authority that pressures, and communication that refuses to respect boundaries.

When you show jurors how and when texts occurred, rather than arguing about what they say, the conclusion becomes unavoidable.

And once that happens, reasonable doubt does not survive the record.