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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'All About Case Selection': Small But Mighty Miami Firm Reflects on Decades of Success
- 2Visa CLO-Turned-Vice Chair Seeing Payoff From Expanded Role
- 3Supreme Court of Georgia Disbars 1, Reinstates 1
- 4New York City’s Failure To Pay Its Bills Is Putting Vulnerable New Yorkers in the Crosshairs
- 5Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
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