Digital Evidence in the Courtroom

Digital Evidence in the Courtroom

Computers have existed since the late 1980s. They reside in businesses, homes, and government agencies. Because of computers, the use of digital evidence has helped to solve crimes and prosecute offenders. Too often law enforcement agencies and the judiciary are not well prepared to deal with the issues created by the increasing use of this evidence. There is a shortage of judges and attorneys that understand technology and jurors that understand the evidence, but the ones that are available may harbor doubts about the reliability and significance of digital evidence. Electronic evidence refers to, Information and data of investigative value that are stored in or transmitted by an electronic device. (Schmallger, Frank, p.1). Evidence must meet certain standards before it is introduced in the courtroom (Eoghan Casey, p. 169). It is up to the digital forensics specialist to ensure that evidence meets these standards. Many cases have been thrown out of court based upon evidence that is declared unreliable.

To avoid creating misunderstandings and confusion at trial, there is a concept that terms should be explained in simple and selective analogies along with visual aids. Prosecutors should not assume that investigators understand. In return, technically sophisticated investigators or examiners should not assume that prosecutors fully grasp the problems encountered in recovering and analyzing the evidence. Prosecutors, investigators, and examiners should share their knowledge of technical problems and discuss strategies involved in the development of digital evidence. Digital evidence cases often present procedural and technical issues that may be substantial in nature.

The fourth amendment requires that a search warrant be utilized to search and seize evidence. A common mistake that prevents digital evidence from being introduced in court is that the evidence may have been obtained without authorization. When the investigator is applying for a search warrant, the affidavit should be specific and cannot just say that the suspect owned the computer (Eoghan Casey, p. 170). In the United States v. Carey (case ref), the investigator found child pornography on a machine while searching for evidence of drug related activity but the images were inadmissible because they were outside of the scope of the warrant (Eoghan Casey, p. 171). Searches are generally limited in scope and the courts do not allow, "Witch hunts." Therefore, investigators must demonstrate that there was probable cause to search and or seize evidence and that there is a specific reason to believe that evidence of a given crime exists

Defense attorneys try to cast doubt on electronic evidence and will attempt to invoke the best evidence rule. The court would prefer that original evidence be introduced but will accept