- Why didn't I prepare more for that because I knew it was coming? This is a tendency to dodge the bad news.
- That witness never said any of that before? Why didn't I have an investigator follow up on an interview?
- How did they get to that conclusion? I should have addressed that issue...I should have, I could have, I ...
No one can foresee everything in the future. No one can alleviate the elements of surprise presented by witnesses. Witnesses recant, don't show up, cannot remember, are reluctant, act reluctant, or are just stupid.
Evidence is often the same. Physical evidence is dumb. It is really that simple. An inanimate object left there, introduced and perceived
by the Government or Defense. It is left only to the perception of jurors to make a determination of its value, relevance and what it actually.
Digital evidence is different and should be treated as such. It is the equivalent of introducing an old coal mine, a water well, view of a ship sunk and undisturbed on the bottom of the ocean. It is the Easter Island of discovery. In all reality it can quickly become quicksand or a magic carpet ride!
McLeod Law performs in-house forensics more than adequately. Often better than the experts. This does not alleviate the need for experts, as we cannot be a witness, but it allows a deeper understanding and ability to work the case. More importantly, it creates a large swath of "what we do know," and shrinks the territory of hostility called, "what we don't know." It takes a huge piece of real estate from "we don't know what we don't know."
That is all we can ask. Practical people just want to know, to the best of anyone's knowledge, what is it and what is going to become of it?
Striving to become better at our trade we are constantly looking to get better at trial. Getting better at trial gets to the level of engineering the trial. Is a phone or computer or other electronic device relevant or not?
We get better presenting our facts, our witnesses, our case; producing a defense in debunking the government theory, cross examination, crushing their Opening Statements "Tie in" with evidence to their Closing Arguments.
We pride ourselves in creating an atmosphere at trial where the prosecution cannot come back to their opening with the proverbial, "see,", "there it is", "what did we tell you?", "nothings changed," "it is all right there," "he did it and we know it..."
gets up and says, "see, they are wrong," "there it is NOT," "what did THEY tell you," "NOTHINGS changed???", "it is all NOT there,", "he DID NOT do it and we know that!...and THEY know it."
Police procedure entails securing a crime scene. Evidence is secured and all digital evidence such as cell phone, iPads, tablets and computers are to be placed in Airplane Mode and turned off for analysis. How many times have there been trials and those pieces of evidence are never analyzed? Not all drugs are analyzed? These are not rocks unturned, but mountains.
You make sure pistols are operational before trial. Then make damn sure
the cell phone and computer are, too. If there is nothing on them then you can object to their admissibility or otherwise because they are irrelevant. Don't let an extra phone be introduced because profiling for drug trafficking tells you multiple phones are indicative of trafficking. Well, profiling means "no phones" and "one phone" and "many phones" are indicative of trafficking.
I don't know, but I like the "one phone" scenario for me and my client. That is who we are, one phone people. One phone versus three at the scene is tremendously better. This happens all the time and everyone know it. We know what time it is and you do, too. Get with the scene. Get with the times and protect yourselves and those around you.
Call about our sharp legal practice. Call about our forensics. Call about your freedom. Let's get moving.