The Supreme Judicial Court has held that the 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. handed down the verdict.
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 field of expertise is characterized as cell phone technology or digital forensics, the trial judge found that the expert testimony submitted established the reliability of the FLH dates in this document. “We did not abuse our discretion in determining that the Commonwealth had not met its burden to show that the federal government had failed in this case,” Justice 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 must fully bear the burden of demonstrating to gatekeepers the reliability of expert testimony regarding FLH data in other pending or future litigation. “It may be possible to achieve this goal,” 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.