DOCSLIB.ORG

Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: a Guide for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs J National Institute of Justice A N . 0 7 Special REPORT Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General Regina B. Schofield Assistant Attorney General David W. Hagy Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs and Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at: National Institute of Justice www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities www.ojp.usdoj.gov JAN. 07 Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors NCJ 211314 David W. Hagy Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs and Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice This document is not intended to create, does not create, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The products, manufacturers, and organizations discussed in this document are presented for informational purposes only and do not constitute product approval or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice. This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement #98–IJ–CX–K003 between the National Institute of Justice and the National Center for Forensic Science. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Foreword Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, ❋ Forensic Examination of Digital and judges are overwhelmed by the Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, amount of information required to keep www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/ pace with the rapid changes involving the 199408.htm. computer and its associated devices and features. Criminals continually alter, revise, ❋ Investigations Involving the Internet or create hardware, software, viruses, and Computer Networks, NCJ 210798, and other attacks in an effort to disguise www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/ criminal activity and thwart detection. 210798.htm, publication pending. In addition to being familiar with these changes in technology, law enforcement The remaining guides in the series will officers and prosecutors also must stay address: abreast of the latest revisions of applicable ❋ laws. Using advanced technology to investigate. To assist prosecutorial offices and associ­ ❋ Creating a digital evidence forensic unit. ated law enforcement agencies, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has developed a series of guides dealing with Because laws continually evolve, the digital evidence to address the complete Technical Working Group for Digital investigation process. This process Evidence in the Courtroom (TWGDEC) expands from the crime scene, through recognizes that its recommendations may analysis, and finally into the courtroom. not apply in all circumstances. The guide’s The guides summarize information from recommendations are neither mandates select groups of practitioners who are nor policy directives, nor do they represent knowledgeable about the subject matter. the only correct courses of action. Rather, These groups are more commonly known the recommendations discuss applicable as technical working groups (TWGs). laws combined with a consensus of the experience of the technical working group This guide is the fourth in this series. members to provide valuable insight into The other guides are: the important issues involved with using digital evidence in the courtroom. We hope ❋ Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: these recommendations spark discussions A Guide for First Responders, about the practices and procedures that www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/ are best suited to a jurisdiction’s unique 187736.htm. environment. iii NIJ also hopes that these materials will lengthy) guide preparation meetings held enable more of the Nation’s law enforce­ at locations far removed from their home ment personnel and prosecutors to work offices or agencies. All of us at NIJ appre­ effectively with digital evidence, maximiz­ ciate the commitment made by the home ing its reliability to the benefit of criminal offices or agencies of TWGDEC members case prosecutions. in making their employees available for this work. NIJ extends its appreciation to TWGDEC participants for their dedication to the David W. Hagy preparation of this guide. Their efforts are Deputy Assistant Attorney General, particularly commendable given that they Office of Justice Programs and participated in TWGDEC while continuing Principal Deputy Director, to carry out their duties with their home National Institute of Justice offices or agencies. Moreover, TWGDEC members had to attend numerous (and iv Technical Working Group for Digital Evidence in the Courtroom TWGDEC was a multidisciplinary group of practitioners and subject-matter experts from across the United States. Planning panel Fred Smith Attorney Abigail Abraham Santa Fe, New Mexico Assistant Attorney General Illinois Attorney General’s Office Richard Salgado Chicago, Illinois Senior Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Carleton Bryant Criminal Division Staff Attorney Computer Crime and Intellectual Knox County Sheriff’s Office Property Section Knoxville, Tennessee Washington, D.C. Stephen J. Cribari Defense Attorney Additional TWGDEC University of Minnesota Law School members Minneapolis, Minnesota Additional members were subsequently Donald Judges incorporated with the planning panel Ben J. Altheimer Professor of members to create the full technical Legal Advocacy working group. The individuals listed below University of Arkansas School of Law worked together with the planning panel to Fayetteville, Arkansas formulate this guide. Robert Morgester Steven Beltz Deputy Attorney General Washington State Patrol State of California Department of Justice Olympia, Washington Office of the Attorney General Criminal Law Division Robert Beitler Sacramento, California Florida Department of Law Enforcement Computer Evidence Recovery Ivan Orton Tallahassee Regional Operations Center Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tallahassee, Florida King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Fraud Division John Boesman Seattle, Washington Prince George’s County Police Department Palmer Park, Maryland Dick Reeve General Counsel Don Buchwald Second Judicial District Project Engineer Denver District Attorney’s Office Aerospace Corporation Denver, Colorado Los Angeles, California v Don Colcolough Stacey Levine AOL Time Warner, Inc. Criminal Division Dulles, Virginia Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section Kevin Comerford U.S. Department of Justice Erie County Police Services Washington, D.C. Buffalo, New York Jim May William Crane Prince George’s County Police Department Assistant Director Palmer Park, Maryland Computer Crime Section National White Collar Crime Center Justin Price Fairmont, West Virginia Florida Department of Law Enforcement Computer Evidence Recovery Jeff Dort Tampa, Florida Deputy District Attorney Internet Crimes Against Children Dan Purcell Task Force Investigator San Diego District Attorney’s Office Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Family Protection Division Economic Crimes Unit/Computer San Diego, California Forensics Sanford, Florida Donald Flynn, Jr. Attorney Advisor Chris Romolo Cyber Crime Center United States Secret Service U.S. Department of Defense Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Joseph Schwerha, IV William Fulton Assistant District Attorney Texas Department of Public Safety Office of the District Attorney Special Crimes Services Washington, Pennsylvania San Antonio, Texas Carl Selavka Mary Horvath National Institute of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Roland Lascola John A. Sgromolo Federal Bureau of Investigation Director of Investigations and Training Washington, D.C. LC Technology International Clearwater, Florida Barry Leese Detective Sergeant, Ret. Todd Shipley Maryland State Police Detective Computer Crimes Unit Reno Police Department Columbia, Maryland Computer Crimes Unit Reno, Nevada vi Rebecca Springer Facilitators Assistant Statewide Prosecutor Florida Office of Statewide Prosecution John Bardakjy Central Florida Bureau Project Manager Orlando, Florida National Center for Forensic Science Orlando, Florida Scott Stein Cybercrimes Unit Dale Heideman Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern Deputy Director District of Virginia National Center for Forensic Science Alexandria, Virginia Orlando, Florida Chris Stippich Anjali Swienton Digital Intelligence, Inc. ACS Defense, Inc. Waukesha, Wisconsin Contracted to the National Institute of Justice Mike Swangler U.S. Department of Justice United States Secret Service Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. and President and CEO Jeanette Supera SciLawForensics, Ltd. Senior Investigator Germantown, Maryland Office of the Attorney General State of Nevada Carrie Whitcomb Carson City, Nevada Director National Center for Forensic Science Wayne
Recommended publications
  • Chain of Custody

    Chain of Custody

    BY KEITH G. CHVAL Chain of Custody Recent incidents have shown how important it is for colleges and universities to preserve evidence — including digital evidence — that may be required in a legal investigation. ey Jon, I need the “ chain of custody.” H “The what?” Your general counsel has just stopped by your office and dropped that bombshell on you as you were drinking your morning cup of coffee. “Remember all those e-mails and other electronic files you gave us in connection with that internal investigation of Smith last summer? Well, the case is going to trial, and we need the chain of custody to prove that Smith really wrote all those things. Without the chain of custody, the judge won’t admit any of that information, and we’ll get killed at trial.” While chain of custody is a legal is challenging the authenticity of If “chain of custody” is a new or term of art — meaning it has a evidence — particularly where digital vague concept to you, you’re not alone. specific meaning in the law and can evidence is involved — I’ve found that AEL HENDERSON AEL In simplest terms, a proper chain have legal consequences — it has there are very few who adequately L of custody establishes the integrity significant practical implications for account for the chain of custody, let of a piece of evidence, showing that IT managers and other professionals. alone appreciate its importance,” it wasn’t tampered with or otherwise “Although it plays a critical function observes Scott Carlson, a partner in altered since it was first collected.
  • 19-Cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3

    19-Cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3

    Case 2:19-cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) 2:19-cr-8-NR ) OMARI PATTON, ) ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Omari Patton and 47 co-defendants are charged with engaging in a large-scale conspiracy to traffic a variety of Schedule I, II, and III controlled substances, including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids. Mr. Patton has requested leave to file a motion to suppress certain laboratory test results and other items that the Federal Bureau of Prisons seized, including card stock and other paper that was believed to have been soaked in controlled substances. ECF 1774; ECF 1810. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Court will grant Mr. Patton leave to file his motion to suppress, but will deny the motion without prejudice to Mr. Patton reasserting his objections at or around the time of trial. Mr. Patton’s primary argument is that “the Government failed to properly preserve” the cards and paper seized and later lab tested because of “numerous and serious errors in the chain of custody.” ECF 1810, ¶¶ 4-6. Mr. Patton claims that “[p]hysical evidence must be authenticated before being admitted into evidence.” Id. at ¶ 7. He also claims that the substantial “break” in the chain of custody here makes this authentication impossible. Id. at ¶ 31. The government, however, correctly points out that “[a]uthentication objections, like other trial objections, are assessed according to the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 104(a) and 901(a),” and there is “no requirement that the proponent [of evidence] do so before the evidence is presented at trial[.]” ECF 1879, at ¶ 22.
  • Civil Liability for False Affidavits

    Civil Liability for False Affidavits

    CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE not recklessly disregarded the truth. The AFFIDAVITS purpose of this article is to discuss the liability that a law enforcement officer Bryan R. Lemons may incur in such a situation. Part I of the Acting Division Chief article discusses the mechanisms through which civil rights lawsuits are generally “Reasonable minds frequently may brought against state and federal law differ on the question whether a particular enforcement officers. Part II generally affidavit establishes probable cause,”1 and discusses the concept of “qualified “great deference” is to be given to immunity.” And Part III discusses the magistrate’s determination of the matter.2 requirements for holding a law Generally, a law enforcement officer is not enforcement officer liable for submitting expected to question a probable cause an affidavit with false or misleading determination made by a magistrate information in it. judge.3 Instead, BACKGROUND a magistrate’s determination of probable The primary federal statute under cause is to be given which lawsuits are filed against state and considerable weight and local law enforcement officers for violating a person’s constitutional rights is should be overruled only 5 when the supporting Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This affidavit, read as a whole in statute was directed at state officials who a realistic and common used the authority granted them to deprive sense manner, does not newly freed slaves of constitutional rights. allege specific facts and The purpose of the statute “is to deter state circumstances from which actors from using their authority to deprive the magistrate could individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if reasonably conclude that 6 the items sought to be such deterrence fails.” While section seized are associated with 1983 may be used to sue state actors the crime and located in the acting under color of state law, it may not place indicated.4 be used against the federal government or However, a plaintiff may challenge 5 Title 42 U.S.C.
  • Chain of Custody Specimen Collection Instructions

    Chain of Custody Specimen Collection Instructions

    DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE CHAIN OF CUSTODY SPECIMEN COLLECTION INSTRUCTIONS Chain of custody specimens can be used as evidence in court as the specimen is collected in the presence of a witness, sealed to prevent tampering and all handling/possession of specimen is recorded on the form from collection to testing. Testing Available Drugs of Abuse Microbiology Drugs of Abuse Screen 5, CoC, Meconium, LAB7379 Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea PCR (CTNG PCR), Urine, LAB7166 Confirmed Drug Abuse Panel 9, CoC, Urine, LAB8020 Rapid Plasma Reagin w/ Reflex Titer (RPR), Blood, LAB7452 All Specimen Types 1. Place appropriate Chain of Custody test order in Epic 2. Microbiology samples can be ordered with or without Chain of Custody. Compete the following items in Epic when ordering testing for Chain of Custody: • Chain of Custody? Mark box “Yes” 3. Obtain Chain of Custody kit from the Laboratory: Anschutz Campus – 720-777-6711 North Campus – 720-478-5250 South Campus – 720-478-6711; 303-201-0155 (after-hours pager) Receive Chain of Custody Kit. Ensure all required items are included. Meconium Kit: Urine Kit: Blood Kit: • Chain of custody bag • Chain of custody bag • Chain of custody bag • Stool specimen container • Plastic cup • Red top vacutainer tube • Security label • 60-mL bottle • Security label • Chain of custody form • Security tape • Chain of custody form • Temperature slip • Chain of custody form 4. Complete Chain of Custody Form 5. Identify witness and obtain witness signature 6. Collect specimen: Meconium: Urine: Blood: • Place 1.0 to 5.0 • Collect specimen in provided cup or pediatric bag • Venipuncture or grams meconium in • Pour specimen into 60-mL transport bottle.
  • Case: 4:11-Cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 1 of 46. Pageid

    Case: 4:11-Cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 1 of 46. Pageid

    Case: 4:11-cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 1 of 46. PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN E. WOLFF, JR., ) CASE NO. 4:11-cv-0454 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE NUGENT ) v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE VECCHIARELLI ) TERRY TIBBALS, ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Respondent. ) This matter is before the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). Before the court is the petition of John E. Wolff, Jr., (“Petitioner”) for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction pursuant to journal entry of sentence in the case of State of Ohio vs. Wolff, Case No. 06-CR-978 (Mahoning County Aug. 29, 2007). (Doc. No. 23-10.) For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. I. Relevant Factual Background The state appellate court that reviewed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence recited the following facts: On September 14, 2006, Wolff was indicted on ten counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)(B), special felony (Counts 1-10); three counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)(B), 1st degree felony (Counts 11-13); five counts of gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)(B), 3rd degree felony (Counts 14-18); and two counts of gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. Case: 4:11-cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 2 of 46.
  • Representing Yourself and Your Business in Magistrate Court

    Representing Yourself and Your Business in Magistrate Court

    REPRESENTING YOURSELF AND YOUR BUSINESS IN MAGISTRATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION Business is rife with conflict. To succeed, a business owner must be adept at resolving these disputes quickly and efficiently. Sometimes, more that a simple phone call, refund or apology is needed. Some disputes must be resolved in court. The American civil judicial system is designed to resolve disputes. Although the process works well, it is expensive and time consuming, sometimes taking several years and costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. For many smaller disputes, the time and cost associated with a traditional lawsuit makes litigation in these forums impractical. Mediation or arbitration are sometimes good options, but only if your adversary is of a similar mindset. There is an alternative. Georgia’s Magistrate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, hearing civil claims involving disputes of $15,000 and less. It is often described as “Small Claims Court.” With the right judge, it might be more aptly called a “Court of Common Sense.” The rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed. There is no jury. In the State and Superior Courts of Georgia, a corporation must by law be represented by an attorney. This is not true for Magistrate Court, where a business may be represented by an employee or owner. In short, Magistrate Court provides a forum in which it is often possible to secure justice quickly and inexpensively for smaller disputes. The purpose of this article is to provide a basic roadmap for representing yourself and your business successfully in Magistrate Court. II. PROS AND CONS There are advantages and disadvantages to trying your case in Magistrate Court as opposed to the slower and more expensive State and Superior Courts of Georgia.
  • The Magistrate Court in New Mexico

    The Magistrate Court in New Mexico

    The Magistrate Court In New Mexico Magistrate Courts: There are 41 magistrate courts, 8 circuit (satellite) courts and 66 magistrate judges in the New Mexico state judicial system. These are courts of limited jurisdiction. They may hold jury trials. Magistrate courts will hear the following case types: traffic violations including DWI/DUI; misdemeanors; civil issues from $0-$10,000; felony preliminary hearings; and county and city ordinance violations. The State Magistrate Court System The magistrate court system was adopted by a state constitutional amendment in 1966 following an eight year study of the court system.1 The magistrate court system replaced the justice of the peace courts. Magistrate judges are elected officials who serve a four-year term.2 They operate under the direction and control of the New Mexico Supreme Court, with the Administrative Office of the Courts providing administrative support.3 The magistrate court is a full-time court of limited jurisdiction and has jurisdiction over matters only as provided by law.4 Magistrate courts are not courts of record, which means the court is not required to keep a record of trial proceedings (i.e., a recorded transcript of the trial).5 Parties aggrieved by any judgement of the magistrate court may appeal to district court within fifteen days after the judgement is rendered to request a trial de novo (new trial).6 Case Types Heard in Magistrate Court Traffic Offense: a violation of the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code article 66. Petty Misdemeanor: an offense which carries a possible fine up to $500 and/or up to six months imprisonment.
  • Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P

    Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P

    University of North Carolina School of Law Carolina Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2006 Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P. Mosteller University of North Carolina School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Publication: Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P. Mosteller* I. INTRODUCTION This paper is in two parts. The first part is about developments in the rules of evidence and particularly about developments in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which have had a major impact on evidence rules in many states. This part turns out to be largely about the past because my sense is that the impact of changes in the formal rules of evidence, which were substantial, are largely historic. In one area, however, significant future changes in the formal rules seem possible: those that may be made as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington,1 which dramatically changed confrontation and may unleash hearsay reformulation. The second part deals with my sense that technological and scientific advances may have a dramatic impact in altering the way cases, particularly criminal cases, are proved and evaluated in the future.
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?

    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
  • State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School

    State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School

    Whittier College From the SelectedWorks of Manoj S. Mate 2014 State Constitutions and the Basic Structure Doctrine Manoj Mate, Whittier Law School Available at: https://works.bepress.com/manojmate/4/ COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE Manoj Mate, Ph.D., J.D. Reprinted from Columbia Human Rights Law Review Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 EDITORIAL BOARD 2013–2014 Editor-in-Chief Ashley Starr Kinseth Executive Editor JLM Editor-in-Chief Edward Kim Alejandro Ortega Journal Executive Executive JLM Executive Submissions Editor Production and Managing Editor Nathiya Nagendra Managing Director Katherine Park Alexander Zbrozek Journal Executive JLM Executive Articles Notes Editor Director of Staff and Editor Zahreen Ghaznavi Alumni Development Michelle Luo Dinah Manning Journal Notes and JLM Executive State Submissions Editors Supplements Editor Brian Civale Aretha Chakraborti Max Hirsch Caroline Stover Executive SJLM Editor Eduardo Gonzalez Journal Articles Editors JLM Articles Editors Beatrice Franklin Rachel Burkhart Mickey Hubbard Meagan Burrows Tamara Livshiz David Hirsch Ian MacDougall Mark Singer Sara Nies Alyssa White Sarah Saadoun Heejeong Won Journal Managing JLM Managing Editors Editors JoAnn Kintz Diane Chan Jarrell Mitchell Johanna Hudgens Corinna Provey Benjamin Menker Dina Wegh COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW Vol. 45, No. 2 Winter 2014 STAFF EDITORS Mitra Anoushiravani Joseph Guzman Patrick Ryan Nieri Avanessian Whitney Hayes
  • GUIDE to NEW YORK EVIDENCE ARTICLE 11 REAL and DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TABLE of CONTENTS 11.01 Real Evidence 11.03 Demonstrative

    GUIDE to NEW YORK EVIDENCE ARTICLE 11 REAL and DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TABLE of CONTENTS 11.01 Real Evidence 11.03 Demonstrative

    GUIDE TO NEW YORK EVIDENCE ARTICLE 11 REAL AND DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 11.01 Real Evidence 11.03 Demonstrative Evidence 11.05 Anatomically Correct Dolls 11.07 Childs Age 11.09 Demonstrations and Experiments 11.11 Personal Appearance & Capability 11.13 Photographs 11.15 Viewing of Premises 11.17 Exhibits to the Jury 11.01. Real Evidence (1) Definition. Real Evidence refers to any tangible object or sound recording of a conversation that is offered in evidence. (2) Admissibility. Real evidence is admissible upon a showing that it is relevant to an issue in the proceeding, is what it purports to be, and has not been tampered with. Proof that an object has not been tampered with and is what it purports to be depends on the nature of the object and, in particular, whether the object is patently identifiable, or fungible. (a) Patently identifiable evidence. When real evidence possesses unique or distinctive characteristics or markings and is not subject to material alteration that is not readily apparent, evidence identifying the object normally will constitute the requisite proof. (b) Fungible evidence. When real evidence is fungible, capable of being altered, contaminated, or replaced, or is a sound recording, in addition to testimony identifying the object, proof that the proffered evidence has not been tampered with is required and may be satisfied by: (i) a chain of custody (i.e. testimony of those persons who handled the object or recording from the time it was obtained or recorded to the time it is presented in court to identify the object or recording and attest to its unchanged condition); or (ii) proof of circumstances that provide reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the object or recording.
  • The Important Role of the North Carolina Magistrate

    The Important Role of the North Carolina Magistrate

    THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA MAGISTRATE IMPORTANT STATISTICS As of June 30, 2018 PERSONNEL 674.6 magistrate full-time equivalent (FTE) positions as of June 30, 2017 Magistrates represent approximately 11% of the Judicial Branch workforce. Like other appointed and elected judicial officials, magistrates earn no leave. FUNCTION Magistrates provide an independent and impartial review of complaints brought to the magistrate by law enforcement officers or the general public. Magistrates also provide timely and cost effective resolutions to civil actions up to $10,000 including summary ejectment (eviction) cases for residential and non- residential properties. WORKLOAD The Judicial Branch uses a workload formula to determine the appropriate number of magistrates per county, subject ABOUT THE MAGISTRATE to a minimum quota set by the General A magistrate is an independent judicial officer, recognized by the North Carolina Constitution as an Assembly. officer of the district court. Magistrates take the same oath as judges and are subject to the Code Magistrates are salaried employees who of Judicial Conduct. N.C. Const., Art. IV, §10; N.C.G.S. §§7A-170 and 7A-143. provide services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Magistrates perform numerous duties as officers of the district court in both civil and criminal proceedings. Most people may be familiar with the magistrate’s role in criminal BUDGET For FY 2017 – 18, magistrates account for proceedings, which includes conducting initial appearances, setting conditions of release, about $49.3 million of the Judicial Branch and issuing warrants. On the civil side, magistrates hear small claims cases, enter orders budget, representing 9.23% of the overall for summary ejectment (evictions), determine involuntary commitments, and handle other General Fund appropriations to the responsibilities.