listen to this articleThe Supreme Judicial Court rules that its limited denial of a federal motion to allow frequent location history (FLH) data obtained from a murder defendant’s Apple iPhone 6 to be introduced at trial was not an abuse of discretion. was lowered.
The Commonwealth argued that expert testimony regarding FLH data established that defendant’s cell phone was in close proximity to the crime scene at the time the crime occurred.
“Regardless of whether the relevant specialty is characterized as mobile phone technology or digital forensics, the trial judge found that the expert testimony submitted established the reliability of the FLH dates in this document. did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commonwealth had not met its burden of showing that the federal government had not met its burden to show that the federal government had not met its burden of failure in this case,” Judge Scott L. Kafker wrote for the court.
Justice David A. Lowy, joined by Justice Serge Georges Jr., wrote a concurring opinion.
“I write separately to emphasize that although the trial judge in this case did not abuse his discretion in ruling that the Commonwealth failed to meet its legal requirements; Daubert Lanigan standard, reference Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharma’s Inc.509 US 579, 585-595 (1993); Commonwealth v. Lanigan419 Mass. 15, 25-26 (1994), parties may be well placed to demonstrate the reliability of gatekeeper expert testimony regarding FLH data in other pending or future litigation. No,” Loewy wrote.
“As more is known about FLH data, parties seeking to prove the reliability of gatekeepers may resolve many, if not all, of the Commonwealth’s deficiencies. In other words, the parties may not need Apple’s experts to testify about the proprietary algorithms that create the FLH data to establish the gatekeeper’s credibility.In summary, today’s ruling immediately I wrote a separate article to emphasize that it does not determine the outcome. Daubert Lanigan We will try a separate case based on existing or evolving technology,” he added.
The decision on page 37 is Commonwealth v. ArringtonLawyers Weekly No. 10-019-24.
