Every month or so we hear something about a crime lab or forensic examiner who compromised a case by lying, stealing, misrepresenting credentials or worse. And then there are cases when these experts just get it wrong. A recent article in The Atlantic noted that the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed that subjective, pattern-based forensic techniques contributed to wrongful convictions in more than one-quarter of 329 DNA exoneration cases since 1989.
But much less has been written about the veracity of digital evidence in criminal cases, because no one has really looked at the issue. Imagine what would happen if anyone ever did.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
