Credit: terovesalainen/Adobe Stock Is a Qualified Expert Needed to Explain the Location-Tracking Function of a Cellphone? Appeals Court Says No
The Maryland Court of Appeals reinstated a man's murder conviction, finding a state's witness did not need to be qualified as an expert to testify that cellphone users can adjust a cellphone's ability to track and collect location data.
July 01, 2022 at 04:00 PM
6 minute read
What You Need to Know
- After he was convicted of murder, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ordered a new trial for Rony Galicia on the ground that the average person was not knowledgeable about the adjustment of location tracking functions of a cellphone.
- The 5-2 majority of the Maryland Court of Appeals held that under Rule 5-701, a witness does not need to be qualified as an expert to testify about the function and collection of data.
- In a dissenting opinion, Judge Shirley Watts said a layperson would not have specialized knowledge to explain a gap in location history on a Google account.
A split panel of the Maryland Court of Appeals has reinstated a man's murder conviction, finding a state's witness did not need to be qualified as an expert to testify that cellphone users can adjust a cellphone's ability to track and collect location data.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Related Stories
View AllYou Might Like
View All
State Appellate Court Relies on 'Cancellation Rule' for Expert's Conflicting Testimony
NY Appeals Court Grants J&J's Subpoena for Talc Expert as 'Clearly Relevant'
6 minute read
Massachusetts Attorney Awarded $3.3M for Injuries in Snowmobile Crash With Army Helicopter, Federal Judge Rules
Trending Stories
- 1Fisher & Phillips Elects 25 New Partners In 15 Cities
- 2New York State Bar Outlines 2025 Legislative Priorities, Aiming for Fairness, Equity
- 3Family of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
- 4Houston Appeals Court Split Over Race Discrimination Suit Involving COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
- 5‘It's Your Funeral’: On Avoiding Damaging Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
