Subject matter experts and litigators from NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center explain and discuss some of the important digital technology issues that defense counsel will very likely encounter in these cases. The faculty focus on reverse searches, facial recognition, and device searches.

Expert evidence is frequently exploited by prosecutors keen on securing a conviction regardless of the reliability of the expert or the expert’s methodology. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in forensic science. To combat this pervasive problem, defense lawyers need to have a thorough understanding of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and companion rules. Rene L. Valladares and Hannah Nelson discuss the rules, summarize cases favorable to the defense, and provide useful checklists.

This training program will aid those working to defend persons accused of homicide in drug-related overdose deaths. Each section of the program focuses on a different aspect of these cases. CLE is not available for this program.

Geofence warrants, a type of reverse search warrant, compel companies, like Google, to turn over substantial information about devices interacting with their technology within a particular geographic region. For this reason, geofence warrants mark an unprecedented increase in the government's ability to locate individuals without investigation. This primer will show you how geofence warrants are constructed and outline strategies to challenge these warrants when they appear in criminal cases. 

for Criminal Defendants

Wholesale destruction of communications evidence on agents’ cellphones and elsewhere is something that criminal defendants and their lawyers face with shocking regularity.

Understanding the Issues & the Science

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation Of Texas, Inc., the Cato Institute and the Rutherford Institute As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner.

Argument: NACDL’s amicus brief argues that the Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ rule would require § 1983 plaintiffs to initiate parallel federal litigation, contrary to principles of judicial economy, federalism, comity, and constitutional avoidance. Federal courts generally would stay a parallel § 1983 action under Pullman. Federal courts also may stay a parallel § 1983 action for declaratory relief. If federal courts do not stay a parallel § 1983 action, they risk making constitutional decisions unnecessarily or based on erroneous interpretations of state law. The Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ rule is unworkable and has no discernible benefit, despite its significant costs.

This comment from the Fourth Amendment Center addresses the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report "Digital Investigation Techniques: A Scientific Foundation Review."

2012

Evidence is the crux of every criminal case, making forensic science one of the most (if not the most) critical elements of an investigation and defense. This page contains materials and information relating to a vareity of forensic science subtopics. As forensics continue to evolve, so will this collection. 

NACDL adopts a report and recommendations on law enforcement searches of digital evidence.

NACDL calls upon the federal government to conduct a comprehensive review of cases in which potentially flawed forensic evidence was utilized, including but not limited to those in which microscopic or visual hair comparison evidence was admitted, and to make immediate and full disclosure of the use of such evidence to the prosecution, defendant, and defense counsel in each case, ........

Federal laws protecting individual privacy rights in electronic communications have not been meaningfully updated in over 25 years, even though many of today’s technologies were not even conceived of when Congress considered the legislation and when the Supreme Court created the “Third Party Doctrine.” This white paper discusses the current status of the law and concludes with recommendations for reform. [Released February 2012]

Forensic science evidence presented in court is often based on speculative research, subjective interpretations and inadequate quality control procedures, according to this report. Police need to be taken out of the laboratory, and the "crime labs" need to be taken out of the police station, with the goal of ensuring the scientific integrity of forensic science evidence. Neutrality and objectivity are as essential to preventing wrongful convictions and exonerating the innocent as they are to solving crimes and convicting the guilty. [Released February 2010]