Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Support Blogs -> Ride the Lightning: Electronic Evidence
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation Support
: Ride the Lightning: Electronic EvidenceMUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING? COMPUTER FORENSICS AND THE MELENDEZ-DIAZ CASE
There has been a lot of chatter on the airwaves about the June 25th decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (the case can be found here). Is it worth all the hullaballoo? Not in my judgment, at least not where computer forensics is involved.
Mind you, it is a very significant case for forensics generally, especially in those areas of forensics where labs have been allowed to produce "certificates" showing results of lab work. In this case, state lab analysts submitted sworn certificates as to the quantity, quality and composition of cocaine connected to the petitioner.
In short, the Court held that allowing such certificates in evidence without an analyst present to testify violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment Right to confront the witnesses against him. It was a close call, 5-4, with some unusual alliances amongst the Justices.
So, yes . . . this is going to cause overburdened forensics labs a lot of heartburn, as valuable time will have be allocated to being present in court. But probably not computer forensics labs.
I cannot think of any case I have ever heard of or been a part of where a computer forensics report was in issue without experts testifying about the report. Whether it is a local police officer or an FBI CART agent, they must come. What we do for a living is not "neutral lab work." We work for one side or the other. Computer forensics is both art and science - and skill levels vary widely. We cannot simply weigh something on a scale or apply a solution and measure composition.
Our work is far more akin to the expert aviation engineer who examines the evidence to prove how the plane went down or the doctor who examines a patient and opines that he is insane. We are called upon to testify how a document came to be backdated, or an entire database transferred out of a corporation or whether electronic evidence was fabricated or deliberately spoliated.
We will always be present in court, irrespective of Melendez-Diaz. For us, I don't think this opinion has changed a thing.
E-mail: snelson@senseient.com Phone: 703-359-0700
http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq
Full post as published by Ride the Lightning: Electronic Evidence on July 13, 2009 (boomark / email).
Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
SAY
Nvidia and AMD
charged with price-fixing computer GPU (graphics processing units) chips
Computer Spyware Act
Spammer to pay $100,000 settlement in email fraud lawsuit.
Patni Computer Systems Ltd.
H-1B visa holders to get $2.4 million settlement from federal wage rate violation suit.
Consumer Funding
BlueHippo Funding agrees to set up $5 million restitution fund after modifying its computer sales program.

Courts - "Is Melendez-Diaz already endangered"
Courts - SCOTUS decides Melendez-Diaz, others; Indiana implications of M-D
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
Respondent's brief in Melendez-Diaz
Still no decision in Melendez-Diaz







