Search This Blog

A Word About Our Blog Entries

The Julie Group shares a professional interest in the area of digital and emerging technology and law. As professionals there is a rich and deep appreciation for the differences of opinion that can appear in this space. You must never assume that opinion, where it is introduced is universally shared and endorsed by all our volunteers. Nor are they necessarily the very best snapshot of a given issue.

Readers are expected to think about the issues, question everything worth discussing, and add value to the conversation by correcting what's here or broadening the understanding of the subject. This is part of the educational process between us all. Our hope is that this exercise results in better law, law enforcement, and citizen participation in forging sophisticated social understandings of the technological forces changing our lives.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Connecticut Law Tribune: Set Evidentiary Standards

The Crime & Federalism blog has an article from the Connecticut Law Tribune:

A similar issue arose not long ago in a case I tried against John Danaher, now the state's public safety commissioner. An FBI agent with a fine arts background testified about computer-enhanced images of a hat band that the federal government used to link my client to the robbery of a jewelry store. The agent's testimony about digital manipulation of images came down to this: it is reliable because we use it all the time.

Chief Justice Chase Rogers is reaching out far and wide to tap lawyers and judges to sit on committees for all manner of things. How about a committee on evidentiary standards for computer-generated evidence? The bar is ignorant. And innocent people are getting hurt. Just ask Julie Amero.

This would be an excellent beginning. If the courts were to set evidentiary standards for computer-generated evidence, there would be a foundation for local and state law enforcement agencies to form best practices guidelines around their investigations of crimes involving computers and Internet use.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

though unrelated to the realm of computer security, this story speaks to the issue of a prosecutor's zeal in the case of the Duke lacrosse players.
Mike Nifong admits that he "maybe got carried away":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse

Rob said...

And further to the Nifong case - he's now been disbarred for his actions.

http://www.beta.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/16/duke.lacrosse/index.html