The Acceptability Of Digital Evidence

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

Mainly in criminal act scene investigation, fingerprint machinery progressions have been responding to with arms open. The theory of biological exclusivity has been urbanized and substantiated by erudition and the judges have maintained this authenticity in the case of Daubert. Although the threat of inaccurate condemnation offers equally to ethical and feasible viewpoint on why dependable and legitimate forensic science is so significant, normal expert substantiation creed also dictates its legitimacy as a precondition for tolerability. Also in 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow made it unblemished that adjudicators have a gatekeeping answerability with admiration to expert substantiation. Federal courts as well as the states have comprised Daubert,

Detail the concept for admissibility of plain sight evidence and the legal requirements for the investigation to invoke a plain sight seizure.

Supportive investigation procedures and protocols should be in place in order to show that the incriminating evidence was on the electronic media. Crime has changed since the dawning of the computer age and the need for digital forensics is growing rapidly. Digital forensics has various areas based on different standards and media types, each with experts. There have been major breakthroughs in digital forensics

In the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals the court of law recommended standards for ascertaining if scientific substantiation was dependable and therefore allowable. Daubert standards pertain to all the U.S. Federal Courts and only in several state courts. Still, the FBI ought to go all out to meet the Daubert criteria for biometric substantiation used in each prosecution. The analytical requests of biometrics are not topics to Daubert standards so biometrics can be castoff in explorations, in spite of their precise progress. Among exploration and prosecution are areas of warrants. The requisite precise defensibility of procedural approaches is not at all times unblemished with warrant engagements. It is judicious that the FBI to seek out Daubert acquiescence, as well as search for advance usability of procedural proof from explorations to warrants also prosecution desires. Actually, the theory of biological

Since the Victorian era, crimes have been solved using confessions or eyewitness accounts. Those tactics are still used today, but as technology continues to develop more and more, law enforcement and criminal investigators have started to rely more on forensic evidence to solve today’s crimes. In the article “Forensic Science: Evidence, Clues, and Investigations,” by Andrea Campbell, the author discusses the reliability and importance of forensic evidence. By today’s standards, forensic evidence is the most important evidence to present at a trial.

Countries are regularly updating their legal guidelines to explain how digital evidence affects the digital constitution act. As a result, criminals developed their own tools to conceal their crimes creating real-world challenges for forensics investigators. Today, investigators need to learn from many standards of practice: researching from old to new computer systems, expand mechanical knowledge, create new developments and solutions for any investigation.

Daubert’s opinion states that: the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded General Acceptance’ tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Prior to the Daubert hearing from 1923 until 1993 the rigid general acceptance’ test, which arose from Ftye v. United States, 293 f2d. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) is at odds with the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is the trial judge that must still screen scientific evidence to ensure it is relevant and reliable to be used in the court of law. “The focus, of courts, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.” The court should consider factors but by no means exclusive criteria in fulfilling its responsibilities by 1) Testing and validation of the theory or technique and what are the results 2) Has peer review being done on the theory or technique or publication on such result. 3) What is the known rate of error or potential on the theory or technique, and 4) what is the “general acceptance or widespread acceptance of this theory or technique.

The idea of law and order in this country isn’t a new one and, in fact, has taken a very long time to get to the point it is today. But it isn’t done changing or improving because with every new advancement and technology law must adapt to encompass these new gray areas and make them clear in the court of law. An example of a few large milestones in United States’ law that reflect such adaptability are the Federal Rules of Evidence; Federal Rules for Civil Procedure; and the Sedona Conference. Each of these milestones have made clear many issues and gray areas in the law. Issues in evidence collection and presenting as well as digital evidence collection are a few of the many subjects covered in these federal rules.

In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead the discussion to the conclusion that the above statement is not sustainable

In a world where technology is increasingly becoming the way of life, it was only a matter of time before crime was no longer just in the streets but happening online as well. Criminals now get a new approach to carry out their crimes with the use of computers. Since technology is more like a murder mystery than catching the bad guy in the act, a new discipline of forensics needed to be put into place. This is known as computer forensics. Forensic science is any science used for the purpose of law. In the case of computer forensics it is “the discipline that combines elements of law and computer science to collect and analyze data from computer systems, networks, wireless communications, and storage devices in a way that is admissible as evidence in a court of law” (U.S. Cert, 2008). Meaning if you do something illegal on the Internet it can be found.

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”  (Harris vs. United States, 1947).

“The entire legal profession has become so mesmerized with the stimulation of the courtroom that we tend to forget that we ought to be healers of conflict. Our system is too costly, too painful,… As healers of human conflicts, the obligation of the legal profession is to provide mechanisms that can produce an acceptable result in the shortest possible time, with the shortest possible expense and the minimum of stress on the participants. This is what justice is all about.”

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE OPINION OF A COMPUTER FORENSICS EXAMINER AS AN EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER NIGERIAN LAW OF EVIDENCE By