•  
  •  
 

Publisher

The Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (ADFSL)

Abstract

As digital evidence grows in both volume and importance in criminal and civil courts, judges need to fairly and justly evaluate the merits of the offered evidence. To do so, judges need a general understanding of the underlying technologies and applications from which digital evidence is derived. Due to the relative newness of the computer forensics field, there have been few studies on the use of digital forensic evidence and none about judges’ relationship with digital evidence. This paper describes a recent study, using grounded theory methods, into judges’ awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of digital evidence. This study is the first in the U.S. to examine judges and digital forensics, thus opening up a new avenue of research. It is the second time that grounded theory has been employed in a published digital forensics study, demonstrating the applicability of that methodology to this discipline. This paper describes the process of grounded theory, a high-level summary of results, and conclusions from the study.

References

American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). (2008). AAFS digital & multimedia sciences. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.aafs.org/Digital-Multimedia-sciences

American Bar Association (ABA). (2009). A study about judges’ perceptions of digital forensic evidence. Judicial Division Record, 12(4), 3.

Ball, C. (2008). What judges should know about computer forensics. National Workshop for District Judges II. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.craigball.com/ What_Judges_Computer_Forensics-200807.pdf

Beebe, N. L. (2009). Digital forensic research: The good, the bad, and the unaddressed. In G. Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances in Digital Forensics V, IFIP AICT 306 (pp. 17-36). Berlin, Germany: International Federation of Information Processing.

Brown, S. C., Stevens, Jr., R. A., Troiano, P. F., & Schneider, M. K. (2002, March/April). Exploring complex phenomena: Grounded theory in student affairs research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(2), 1-11. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.colgate.edu /portaldata/imagegallerywww/4119/ImageGallery/Grounded_Theory.pdf

Caloyannides, M. A. (2003). Digital “evidence” and reasonable doubt. IEEE Security & Privacy, 1(6), 89-91.

Carlton, G. H. (2006). A protocol for the forensic data acquisition of personal computer workstations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Carlton, G. H. (2007). A grounded theory approach to identifying and measuring forensic data acquisition tasks. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 2(1), 35-55.

Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensics science, computers and the Internet (3rd ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, F. (2010). Digital forensic evidence examination (2nd ed.). Livermore, CA: ASP Press.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92- 102.ZO.html

Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Jones, A. (2009). Computer science and the Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence: Defining the judge's role as a firewall. Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 14(1), 23-40.

Kerr, O. S. (2005a). Digital evidence and the new criminal procedure. Columbia Law Review, 105(1), 279-318.

Kerr, O. S. (2005b). Search warrants in an era of digital evidence (The George Washington University Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 128). Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=665662

Kerr, O. S. (2009). Computer crime law (2nd ed.). St. Paul. MN: Thomson/West.

Kessler, G.C. (2010, September). Judges' Awareness, Understanding, and Application of Digital Evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.garykessler.net/library /kessler_judges&de.pdf

Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (97-1709), 526 U.S. 137, 131 F.3d 1433 reversed (1999). Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1709.ZS.html

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Losavio, M., Adams, J., & Rogers, M. (2006). Gap analysis: Judicial experience and perception of electronic evidence. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 1(1), 13-17.

Mack, K., & Anleu, S. R. (2008). The national survey of Australian judges: An overview of findings. Journal of Judicial Administration, 18(5), 5-21.

Moncur, M. (2010). Quotation #776 from Michael Moncur’s (cynical) quotations. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/776.html

Nance, K., Hay., B., & Bishop, M. (2009). Digital forensics: Defining a research agenda. In R. Sprauge (Ed.), Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Perspectives on learning (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pogson, C. E., Bott, J. P., Ramakrishnan, M., & Levy, P. E. (2002). A grounded theory approach to construct validity: Investigating first-order constructs in organizational justice to triangulate with current empirical research. Research Methods Forum, 7.

Rogers, M., Scarborough, K., Frakes, K., & San Martin, C. (2007). Survey of law enforcement perceptions regarding digital evidence. In P. Craiger & S. Shenoi (Eds.), International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP): Vol. 242, Advances in Digital Forensics III (pp. 41-52). Boston, MA: Springer.

Scarborough, K. E., Rogers, M., Frakes, K., & San Martin, C. (2009). Digital evidence. In F. Schmalleger & M. Pittaro (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 477-488). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Schram, T. H. (2006). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Sprauge, R. (Ed.). (2009). Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.

Van Buskirk, E., & Liu, V. T. (2006). Digital evidence: Challenging the presumption of reliability. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 1(1), 19-26.

Whitcomb, C. M. (2002). An historical perspective of digital evidence: A forensics scientist's view. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 1(1). Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/ 9C4E695B- 0B78-1059-3432402909E27BB4.pdf

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2011.1088

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.