Scott v. US - Android Device Forensics to Identify Email Owner in Virginia
This was a case in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk. The case involved evidence obtained through several Hampton Roads jurisdictions including Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach. The defendant did not have his own computer forensics examiner to analyze the government evidence, which was extensive.
ReadPOLYONE CORPORATION v. YUN MARTIN LU - Forensics Damages Under CFAA
Plaintiff PolyOne Corporation developed a custom formula for a type of soft plastic for use in synthetic wine corks. It claims that the formula is a trade secret and that defendants misappropriated the formula by using it to develop their own. PolyOne also brings claims that defendants tortiously interfered with its contract with an employee and its prospective relations with customers, conspired with one of its former employees, and violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Defendants bring counterclaims of commercial disparagement and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Now, defendants move for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment on PolyOne's claims and to exclude the testimony of two PolyOne expert witnesses. PolyOne moves for summary judgment on the counterclaims.
ReadNorfolk VA Defendant Convicted of Possession of Contraband After Computer Forensics
The Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting the Special Agent's testimony regarding his forensic examination of a computer. Specifically, the Defendant claimed that the law enforcement computer forensics examiner lacked the requisite knowledge and training to explain how the Forensic Tool Kit software used in this case was designed and functioned and that the Government failed to offer testimony regarding the reliability, peer review, error rate, and standards of the industry for the software as required by the Federal Rules of Evidence
ReadDefendant Convicted After Skipping Computer Forensics
Defense counsel filed a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict, alleging a violation of his due process rights. Apparently the prosecution agreed to nolle prosequi or dismiss the charges if the defendant received treatment. As a result, the defendant did not hire a computer forensics expert to retrieve recently deleted electronic communications from the complainant to the defendant. The defense argued that the digital evidence was essential to the defense
ReadTraffic Stops, Perjury and Computer Forensics
Defendant was convicted of perjury, in violation of Code § 18.2-434. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in finding that collateral estoppel did not bar his perjury prosecution, as the issue of the accuracy and authenticity of a video and appellant’s testimony regarding it was already determined in a prior proceeding. Further, he contends that the trial court erred in allowing a computer forensics expert witness to testify as to an ultimate issue in the case.
ReadRichmond VA Defendant Convicted of Possession of Child Pornography After Computer Forensics
Richmond, VA police responded to a fire at a residence. A bomb technician, questioned appellant about certain explosive materials found. The police examined the contents of a computer located inside the residence for explosive recipes. Instead, the police computer forensics specialist found the use of certain key words connected to child pornography such as "lolita" and "underage." He received more than one hundred hits. He looked for files or photographs, and located numerous images that were possibly child pornography. The defendant was convicted.
Read