Finding the digital smoking gun
Most forensic experts contend that in the digital age, that mobile phones have replaced computers as the most important source for digital data evidence that rarely can be permanently erased.
February 27, 2014 at 04:12 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In every epic Hollywood Perry Mason-like dramatic courtroom case, there is always that smoking gun, the “ah-ha” moment – the ubiquitous document waived by a prosecutor in front of an unsuspecting witness who then emotionally admits to taking part in crime. In reality, those surprise moments rarely occur. But, cell phones message can provide critical information in cases and often provide the missing link to prove a compelling argument that can synch the case.
Take for example, when actor Stephen Baldwin sued fellow actor Kevin Costner back in 2012 over a failed business deal. The lawsuit concerned accusations that he cheated Baldwin out of millions of dollars in a lucrative BP contract for oil-cleaning machines. Attorneys in the case turned over his phone for a forensic exam. According to gigaom.com, the phone sweep turned up old text messages that Baldwin's lawyers put before a jury to claim that Costner knew more than he said he did.
Most forensic experts contend that in the digital age, that mobile phones have replaced computers as the most important source for digital data – evidence that rarely can be permanently erased. The process of discovery is the pre-trial stage when both sides collect and exchange pertinent information for the case as they prepare for the trial. Years ago, it meant turning over filings cabinets and boxes but today, discovery usually involved computers, hard-drives servers and mobile phones.
“A lot of the time, the smoking gun is on the cell phone because people are a lot more liberal when texting than on a corporate computer. They're a lot more off-color when texting,” says Clint Shirley, a partner at New Orleans e-discovery firm Clarity Litigation. He told gigaom.com that at least half of the company's work involves phones rather than computers. Shirley adds that cell phones are significant piece of evidence, and in some cases, forensic examiners have recovered tens of thousands of messages and emails. Typically, attorneys will subpoena a person of interest's email and have a forensic expert “sweep” the phone for evidence. The evidence can be so significant, according to Shirley, because “mobile phones are so significant not only because people are less discreet on their phones, but also because phones can store far more information” than in previous years. While people of interest have to present their cell phones by court order so they can be forensically examined, why they don't simply delete any kind of incriminating evidence prior to handing it over?
Not only is it illegal under the discovery process, and courts order both sides to preserve all relevant evidence.
The second reason is technical. Namely, deleting those damning texts or emails doesn't mean the firms sweeping the phone won't find them all the same. Lars Daniel, an examiner at Guardian Digital Forensics, who has testified in scores of cases, says one can't simply delete a text message or email and destroy it. Other versions of the message remains stored within deeper layers of the phone. However, data can be effectively destroyed if the device has a “factory reset.” A factory reset wipes out the device's existing encryption key, meaning that even if a file has survived, the phone will no longer be able to read it.
A factory reset will purge data but investigators still can, however, find the date of the reset — a potentially incriminating piece of evidence in and of itself.
Related stories:
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.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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