Digital Forensics Dr. Randy M. Kaplan Drexel University

download Digital Forensics Dr. Randy M. Kaplan Drexel University

of 13

  • date post

    12-Jan-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    222
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Digital Forensics Dr. Randy M. Kaplan Drexel University

  • Digital ForensicsDr. Randy M. KaplanDrexel University

  • Testimony

  • The Salient Questions of TestimonyIs the testimony relevant?Is the witness believable?Do other similarly qualified witnesses agree with these conclusions?Is the witnesses testimony comprehensible?Is there admissible evidence to show that the testimony is factual?

  • Roles of An Expert WitnessConsulting ExpertCourts ExpertTestifying ExpertExpert as a Witness to Fact

  • Consulting ExpertConsulting experts provides a combination of trainingreview of existing technologyadvice on strategyassessment of the competitions expertstrategy going into court

  • Courts ExpertSimilar to the consulting expertA court appointed or stipulated expertServes in the consultant capacity but performs his or her technical consulting for the court itself

  • Courts ExpertValuable when judges preside over major cases whereboth sides have their expertsexpert view are wildly divergentsituation is more common then might be imaginedespecially true in cases involving nascent technologies

  • Courts ExpertThis type of expert is independentUnderstands arguments posed by both sidesExplains strengths and weaknesses of both arguments

  • Testifying ExpertThe one that most technologists think of first when the topic of serving as an expert witness comes upRaw functions may be similar to those of a consulting expertConstraints are considerably different

  • Testifying ExpertImplicit ethical responsibilityto be scrupulousto be objectiveNo presumption of privilege that applies to the communications between the attorney and the testifying expert

  • Testifying ExpertAny communication, electronic pr physical, is probably not confidential and subject to discoveryTypically work patterns need to be altered in order to deal with this particular issue

  • Expert as a Witness to FactExpert will be asked to testify as a normal, non-expert witnessExpert is only expected to testify to events he or she personally experienced, actions he or she took, or things he or she saidThe experts technical mastery is not the central feature of the testimony

  • Expert as a Witness to FactThe fact that the witness is also an expert in one or more areas is also bound to bias the fact finders judgementThis may effect the perception of the credibility and demeanor of the witness