Still Scarce, Digital Forensics Crawls Into Public Defenders' Offices
New York City and Philadelphia's public defender offices started rolling out digital forensic labs this year. The two cities are among the very few in the U.S. to find the budget and expertise for such an endeavor.
December 04, 2019 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
Utilizing e-discovery and advanced analytics on new data repositories like social media is becoming the norm in Big Law and large corporate legal departments handling civil matters. But this isn't so much the case in public defenders' offices, many of which are usually outmatched by prosecutors' access to digital forensics software while a client's freedom hangs in the balance.
"I know most offices are just not capable of purchasing the software or hiring experts," said New York State Defenders Association executive director Susan Bryant. "It puts clients at a disadvantage when they are facing a loss of liberty and criminal charges."
An article in The New York Times reported that the New York City Legal Aid Society and the Defender Association of Philadelphia are the only public defense offices that have an in-house digital forensics team. Only a "handful" of public defender offices have purchased data extraction tools or have an internal expert, according to the article.
To be sure, public defenders' clients have the smartphones and social media accounts that can leave a plentiful digital trail that could help or hinder the defense's case.
"Over the past few decades, technology has exploded, with law enforcement consistently getting the first crack at new resources, often from the federal government, with prosecutors and the judiciary getting the next level of new resources," wrote National Association for Public Defense executive director Ernie Lewis in an email.
Yet budget restraints and lacking state funding prevents most public defense offices from splurging and developing a dedicated tech forensics team, Lewis added.
"Public defense nationwide is underfunded, resulting in many if not most offices having excessive workloads/caseloads. When you have too many cases, seldom would an organization place technological needs in front of hiring additional staff to avoid unethical levels of work," he said.
Budgets can also curtail the ability to bring aboard ad hoc expert services, Bryant noted.
"I think that the issue is not only having the technology, but having the expertise in order to use it appropriately, and a lot of offices don't have funding to either obtain in-house expertise or find experts in the field that can work with them," she said. "It's not just enough to have the technology, but it's also having the expertise to understand the results and what you are looking at."
For the public defender offices that can afford ad hoc digital forensic services, it's used sparingly for high-profile cases or when the lawyer determines such data is relevant to a case, observers said.
Meanwhile, offices with on-site forensic teams can access software and experts quickly to examine clients' or witnesses' electronics or social media. Philadelphia's defender office, for example, has the insights of Louis Cinquanto, founder and owner of digital forensics, e-discovery and litigation support company Cornerstone Discovery.
Cinquanto joined the defender's office full time as IT director in April. He said he manages the office's day-to-day IT while building its digital forensics team and providing trial support and digital forensic services.
To be sure, many public defenders aren't even aware of computer forensic tools and its potential impact on a case, said Jules Epstein, a Temple University Beasley School of Law professor and director of its advocacy programs.
"There's no organized system that sends out an alert and says: 'These top 10 technologies to help public defenders in criminal defense,'" Epstein said. "In general, science and technology are not the strengths of lawyers, and it's taken a while for public defender offices to even realize we need a dedicated forensic person, someone that understands drug analysis and DNA," he added.
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
© 2025 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Appears Sympathetic to Law Requiring Porn Sites to Verify Users' Age
- 2Cybersecurity Breaches, Cyberbullying, and Ways to Help Protect Clients From Both
- 3AI in 2025: Five Key Predictions on How It Will Reshape International Law Firms
- 4Justice Known for Asking 'Tough Questions' Resolves to Improve Civility
- 5Robinson & Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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