Almost daily news reports have described details of how easy it seems to be for the government to track, listen in, and track down possible criminal suspects. But technology doesn’t always play a part in every case, no matter how much a popular television show may seem to show. Having said that, recent investigations of the Boston terror attacks, and evidence used in bringing the murder charges against the NFL Patriot’s Aaron Hernandez, are showing the real uses of technology in modern court trials.
One aspect of increased electronic eavesdropping (such as cell phone records) in evidence means defendants need to work only with the most experienced criminal defense lawyers. Criminal defense lawyers are often using their own knowledge of the flaws and limits in technology to fight fire with fire.
In Hernandez’s case, there were three separate sets of digital surveillance that the prosecution has largely based its case on: surveillance videos, cell phone records, and cell phone towers. Much of the evidence even came from video surveillance cameras that Hernandez had installed in his own home: more than a dozen cameras were scattered through Hernandez’s home. The movements of Hernandez up and down Interstate 95 were also based on the records of his cell phone use, collected from the series of cell phone towers. At the same time Hernandez’s movements were allegedly recreated electronically, almost minute-by-minute, so were the murder victim’s. But differences (or lack of specifics) may also be used by an experienced criminal defense lawyer to help show innocence of an accused.
As Hernandez’s criminal defense lawyer noted, much of the evidence rests on a “circumstantial” chain of evidence. Technology is better at showing where someone may be…but not necessarily what they were doing at a particular time. Breaking that chain of electronic evidence with proof of other facts is what may become the future expertise of successful criminal defense lawyers.
