Thank you Fab4 -) The help is appreciated.
No dig, unless you took it that way, if so then my apologies.
We all know you have taken on every kind of case in the world, I can't post something here where you would say, that is new to me, so the fact that most defendants in Federal court 97% will be convicted and do time, and that it's trial by ambush sure lends itself to wanting to help them get that extra 3% huh.
Ignoring the dig at the opening of this paragraph, you missed the point that I made regarding "junk science". The goal in assisting law enforcement would not be to increase the conviction rate but to assure that all available forensic expertise was available to LE and the prosecution in deciding whether to proceed with the case. If there truly is reasonable doubt that the suspect actually and deliberately stored or viewed the images on the device, why take the case to court where the media would chalk it up as one more "My computer did it!" example.
In fact, I was involved in an alleged murder case where the computer evidence was exculpatory and had the prosecution been aware of it, they very likely, would not have pressed forward with a charge of murder. It only got to trial because the evidence was found on the victim's computer and because the prosecution elected not to use anything from it, it wasn't turned over to the defense until just before the trial was to begin.
By not addressing potential mitigating circumstances prior to trial the risk is increased that junk science, or oversight will substitute for reasonable doubt. I can fully imaging the following line of questioning of prosecution witnesses by the defense
Q Were you aware that 21 different instances of malware were found on the suspect's machine?
A No.
Q Did you verify that an antimalware solution was installed on the suspect's machine and that it was running and up to date?
A No.
Q Are you aware that there have been cases where malware was determined to have been a potential culprit in the downloading of child pornography?
A Yes.
Q So, can you say, today, to a reasonable degree of forensic scientific certainty, that malware was not responsible for the downloading of child pornography in this case?
People who haven't worked for a LEO perhaps don't understand that the reason for the high conviction rate is because a lot of cases are thrown out before they get anywhere near a court room.
In the agency I used to work for, if a detective put a case to court, and the prosecution failed, he had to front the Failed Prosecutions Board and explain why. The net effect being that investigators would rather not prosecute, than go to court and lose.
Of course, there will always be a few bad cases slip through the cracks, but that's why the defendant is entitled to a rigorous defense. Frankly though I agree with Sean, that it's better that a case be nipped in the bud at the LEO, since a serious charge on your record, albeit one is dismissed or acquitted is still a black mark on your record. It's better both emotionally and financially to never be charged in the first place.