Attorneys and courts should not simply trust that computer programs are reliable. Why should litigants have faith in evidence that purports to be accurate when the inner workings of the computer program that produced the evidence are shrouded in mystery? Source code review is necessary for a complete assessment of a program’s reliability. Tamar Lerer discusses pretrial strategies to help obtain source code when a program has not been demonstrated to be reliable.

Implicit racial bias in forensic testimony cannot be ignored as a primary driver of injustice. Janis Puracal discusses how implicit racial bias can impact forensic testimony, and she shares her family’s story.

Most types of forensics lack the statistical backing that nuclear DNA tests have. Nonetheless, the general public believes that fingerprinting, for example, is as reliable or even more reliable than DNA testing. What should be the response in the courtroom?

Richard Miletic discusses the types of data that can be extracted from a cellphone (including call history and accessed Wi-Fi networks) and from cloud accounts (including texts, emails, and location history). In addition, he lists the data stored by phone companies (location of serving cell tower and estimation of target phone location).

Law enforcement has started to use genetic genealogy websites to try to identify suspects in cold cases. How does genetic genealogy work? What should defense attorneys look for if forensic genetic genealogy is used in their cases?

“Surreptitious DNA sample” refers to the collection and analysis of DNA from a person without the person’s knowledge and without coercion. For example, the police may swab a suspect’s DNA from a discarded cigarette. Oded Oren outlines an argument for suppressing the DNA information extracted from the analysis of surreptitiously obtained DNA rather than suppression of the DNA itself or the physical object from which it was obtained.

What are some common mistakes made by crime scene investigators during the recovery of human skeletal remains?

Smartphones can create a detailed record of what their users have been doing. Wisconsin litigator Peyton Engel focuses on the traits smartphones have in common with general-purpose computers and the implications from a digital evidentiary perspective. He discusses retrieving evidence from smartphones, extracting information from cloud storage, finding evidence of a secret or hidden phone, wearable tech, issuing subpoenas for social media records, and using apps to collect evidence.

This month Matthew T. Mangino reviews The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist: A True Story of Injustice in the American South by Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington.

“Surreptitious DNA sample” refers to the collection and analysis of DNA from a person without the person’s knowledge and without coercion. For example, the police may swab a suspect’s DNA from a discarded cigarette. Oded Oren outlines an argument for suppressing the DNA information extracted from the analysis of surreptitiously obtained DNA rather than suppression of the DNA itself or the physical object from which it was obtained.

Defense attorneys should not become overwhelmed by DNA evidence and believe they have no way to challenge the allegations. Counsel can demonstrate to jurors that other plausible explanations exist.

Due to the increased push for prosecutions in drug-related deaths, it is more important than ever for criminal justice system stakeholders to have access to accurate, standardized, and professional death investigation and death certification. Amy Hawes and Denise Martin share some of the common pitfalls in drug death investigations, discuss national recommendations for coroner and medical examiner investigations, and set forth the qualifications death investigation experts should possess.

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals broke new ground in 2012 when it held the Fifth Amendment barred the government from compelling decryption of digital media purportedly containing encrypted, self-incriminating data. While the decision could sweep aside some of the best evidence prosecutors are accustomed to obtaining, the ground that decision breaks may prove to be less fertile than it first appears, especially because the Supreme Court has limited the Fifth Amendment rights available to many in white collar cases.

Jurors who enter a courtroom are familiar with DNA evidence and possess preconceived notions of the role this evidence plays in the criminal justice system. In fact, jurors are likely to think that if there is DNA evidence, then the defendant must be guilty of the crime. Instead of focusing solely on battling the scientific validity of the DNA evidence itself, the defense team should consider challenging the logical, inferential connections between the DNA evidence and a finding of guilt. The authors discuss a 2013 trial to illustrate this strategy.

The evidence appeared overwhelming. A late afternoon explosion and fire in a large garage packed with cars and boats, where county sheriffs, the Iowa State Fire Marshal’s Office, and Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) investigators determined there were “multiple areas of origin.”