I work for a Law Enforcement Agency that has recently undergone an extensive job evaluation process. In this, the role of Forensic Computer Analyst has been designated as presenting in court but 'not as an expert witness'. There seems to be varying opinions as to whether this is true, and indeed what actually constitutes an 'expert witness'. As my education and training has always lead me to believe that the role of a digital forensic examiner is ultimately to act as an expert witness, I would be very interested to gather any thoughts on whether this is in fact the case.
I once had a job interview many many years ago where the interviewer asked if I was a "qualified" expert witness. I stated that such a thing essentially doesn't exist (whilst having been previously listed such things as the Sweet&Maxwell expert witness directory) and it's ultimately the perogative of the judge.
I've also had cases where I've been called as the prosecution "expert" and the defendant has subsequently sacked their own "expert" mid-trial and been allowed to operate as their own expert (with access to their material as a result - in supervised conditions due to the content) by virtue of having some computer knowledge.
I've regularly had the situation where I've produced evidence deliberately written with zero opinion in it (and without the standard expert declarations - albeit generally in the same format I would do for that if I had to) but upon arriving at court will suddenly be presented as the prosecution expert and having to operate as such.
I imagine most of us (with any sense) will try to avoid giving opinion at all cost since generally speaking presentation of the facts is more than sufficient in almost all instances of digital forensics.
As usual I find the forensic regulator's contributions totally unhelpful and if anything counter-productive / muddy the waters.
Frankly I think they should set up a completely separate body to fund research/validation of forensic tools (and scrap the idea ISO17025 is appropriate for digital forensics) rather than trying to create the illusion of reliability from limited testing/validation/documentation of process.
Thank you all for your very insightful contributions, and recommended reading. It is always useful to gather a broad spectrum of ideas - there seems to be no single or simple answer!!
an update to this thread:
After 2 long years of appeals process, and despite my extensive research presented in support of the opposite, the role of Forensic Computer Analyst remains designated as presenting in court but 'not as an expert witness'. *sigh*