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.
Posts
2 comments:
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
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
Post a Comment