Evidence

News & Analysis as of

Social Media and Spoliation

As we discussed in our previous post regarding the Christou case, social media is discoverable – and consequently subject to a litigation hold. From an evidentiary standpoint, social media is not without its shortcomings, and...more

Texas Supreme Court Rules on Spoliation Instructions

The court holds that, with rare exception, intent is required for spoliation instructions in Texas. On July 3, the Texas Supreme Court issued its ruling in Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge, holding, with a narrow...more

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Spoliation Under Texas Law

After years of awaiting clarity from the Supreme Court of Texas regarding spoliation under Texas law, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision that will shift how Texas state courts handle civil jury instructions...more

Direct Examination Crisis Control

Sometimes, despite careful preparation by counsel and the witnesses, direct examination unravels. But if you’ve reviewed these crisis control techniques, you’ll be ready when a problem presents itself during your direct....more

Supreme Court of Texas Provides “Much-Needed Clarity” to Texas Spoliation Jurisprudence

On July 3, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a significant opinion in Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Jerry Aldridge, No. 10-0846 (Tex. 2014), that clarifies the standards governing the spoliation of evidence in Texas as well as...more

Expert Testimony Must Be Supported by Evidence

Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B.V. - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final written decisions in 10 inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Although early IPR decisions generally have sustained...more

The risk of self-incrimination in cross-border disputes: Hollinger Case Study - Part III

The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty (“MLAT”) is one way in which incriminating evidence in Canada can be shared with prosecutors in the United States ("U.S."). ...more

Evidence – Expert Witness Testimony – Grounds for Exclusion

City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corporation - Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Nos. 12-55147, 12-55193 (May 2, 2014) - Under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702, expert witness testimony must meet certain...more

In Riley, Supreme Court Sets Mobile Device Privacy Expectations

In a recent decision with significant implications for smart phone users’ privacy expectations, the Supreme Court, in Riley v. California, unanimously rejected the application of the “incident to arrest doctrine” to law...more

United States Supreme Court: Warrants are required to search digital data on seized cell phones

On June 25, 2014, in Riley v. California, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires that police obtain a warrant prior to searching the digital data found on an arrested suspect’s cell...more

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Raises Questions About Cell Phone Searches in Schools

The long-standing test for searching students at school requires that the search must be based on a “reasonable suspicion” that the student violated a school rule or law. A recent criminal decision from the United States...more

Supreme Court Prohibits Warrantless Mobile Phone Searches, Underscores Individual Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court of the United States released a unanimous decision last week barring law enforcement from searching the mobile phones of individuals placed under arrest without first obtaining a search warrant or the...more

Supreme Court Rules That Police May Not Search Cell Phones Without A Warrant

One of the fundamental liberties protected by the Bill of Rights is freedom from unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment reflects the concern that “We the People” should not be subjected to intrusive searches of our...more

Shatto v. Mcleod: The “Specifics” (Or Lack Thereof) In Circumstantial Evidence

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently had its second go-around with a workers’ compensation claim filed by a nurse anesthetist against a temporary medical staffing agency and against the hospital where that agency...more

In Riley v. California, Supreme Court Rules Police Must Obtain Warrant before Searching Cell Phones

In a unanimous decision issued last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot search the cell phones of arrested individuals without a warrant. In reaching its decision, the Court recognized that there is an immense...more

A Victory for Personal Information Privacy

In a stunning victory for Fourth Amendment rights and personal information privacy generally, the United States Supreme Court in Riley v California has held that police may not search an arrestee’s cell phone without a...more

U.S. Supreme Court: Police Must Obtain Warrant Before Searching Cell Phones

In a decision that changes the way law enforcement officers collect electronic information, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), that officers may not search a cell phone incident to a...more

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Protects Cell Phones from Warrantless Searches

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must first obtain a warrant before searching the cell phones of arrested individuals, except in “exigent circumstances.” Chief Justice John Roberts authored...more

Authentication of Social Media Evidence: Best Practices

While the need to authenticate evidence is not new, the types of evidence that trial lawyers need to authenticate is. Social media evidence is one example. While not the type of evidence most practitioners are accustomed...more

Privacy & Data Security Update: Supreme Court Rules that Warrants are Required for Cell Phone Searches

On June 25th, the Supreme Court brought the Fourth Amendment into the digital age with its ruling in Riley v. California. The case presented the question of whether a warrant was required in order for law enforcement to...more

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Defends Expectation of Privacy In Cell Phone Data

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, limited the ability of law enforcement to search cell phones while making arrests, requiring police to obtain a search warrant before examining the data contained in an arrestee’s...more

Massachusetts High Court Permits Compelled Decryption of Seized Digital Evidence

Today, in Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, No. SJC-11358 (Mass. June 25, 2014), a divided Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that under certain circumstances, a court may compel a criminal defendant to provide the password to...more

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Police Officers Cannot Search the Contents of Cell Phones Incident to Arrest Without...

In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from searching through the data on an arrested suspect's cell phone as an "incident to the arrest"...more

Supreme Court Solidifies Privacy Protections for Cellphone Data by Holding Warrantless Searches Incident to Arrest...

With the present Term nearing its end, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major step forward in unanimously extending individual protections from police intrusion into the realm of digital privacy. In a consolidated decision in...more

Public Records Produced Pursuant to OPRA May Not be Redacted for Irrelevancy

The New Jersey Appellate Division has recently confirmed the public’s unfettered right to access government records, regardless of whether certain information produced falls outside a specific request....more

373 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 15