±Forensic Focus Partners
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 3
±Forensic Focus Partner Links
· DFRWS Europe 2015 Annual Conference – Recap
· DFRWS EU 2015 – Dublin 23rd – 26th March
· SQLite Database Forensics – ‘Sleep Cycle’ Case Study
· Data Recovery As A Medium For Email Forensics
· Carving out the Difference between Computer Forensics and E-Discovery
· Forensic Analysis of SQLite Databases: Free Lists, Write Ahead Log, Unallocated Space and Carving
· How Secure Is Your Password? A Friendly Advice from a Company That Breaks Passwords
· Using SQL as a date/time conversion tool
· Forensics and Bitcoin
Confrontation Clause does not need technician
How will this impact your business
This impacts us directly, as we may not be called into court if we are not the final experts are on the case.
At petitioner’s bench trial for rape, Sandra Lambatos, a forensic spe-cialist at the Illinois State Police lab, testified that she matched a
DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory, Cellmark, to a profile
the state lab produced using a sample of petitioner’s blood. She testi-fied that Cellmark was an accredited laboratory and that business
records showed that vaginal swabs taken from the victim, L. J., were
sent to Cellmark and returned. She offered no other statement for
the purpose of identifying the sampleused for Cellmark’s profile or
establishing how Cellmark handled or tested the sample. Nor did
she vouch for the accuracy of Cellmark’s profile. The defense moved
to exclude, on Confrontation Clause grounds, Lambatos’ testimony
insofar as it implicated events atCellmark, but the prosecution said
that petitioner’s confrontation rights were satisfied because he had
the opportunity to cross-examine the expert who had testified as to
the match. The prosecutor argued that Illinois Rule of Evidence 703
permitted an expert to disclose facts on which the expert’s opinion is
based even if the expert is not competent to testify to those underly-ing facts, and that any deficiency went to the weight of the evidence,
not its admissibility. The trial court admitted the evidence and found
petitioner guilty. Both the Illinois Court of Appeals and the State
Supreme Court affirmed, concludingthat Lambatos’ testimony did
not violate petitioner’s confrontation rights because Cellmark’s report
was not offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter
Held:The judgment is affirmed
- Senior Member
From my experience and that of people I talk with, the more people who have their hand in the case, the more points to attack various points of a case, and the more chance for success for someone else to win.
Even if both people have CV's 10 pages long of classes in just acquisitions, and they are the best acquisition people on the planet, questions can and will still be raised and doubt can be considered on methods for this.
This is in a 2 man team, or a big Alphabet organization where 10 people touch a computer and the person who has nothing to do with the computer testifies based on the each person down the chain's findings.
Professional testifiers we called them, fly all over the country and only testify.
- flamerescue150So in a two man team where one person does the acquisition/imaging and the other person does the examination, does this mean only the examiner would be required to testify?
Why order a taco when you can ask it politely?
Alan B. "A man can live a good life, be honorable, give to charity, but in the end, the number of people who come to his funeral is generally dependent on the weather. "
- Senior Member
- flamerescue150I'm specifically thinking of an organization that has a completely separate lab that does the acquisition. The acquired image then goes to an examiner. The examiner and the imaging technician have both been required to testify in the past. I was just wondering if this development alleviates the need for the tech to testify.
- Senior Member