Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New technology: opportunities and challenges for prosecutors

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Justice Michael Kirby, The Urgent Need for Forensic Excellence, (2008) 32 Criminal Law Journal 205, 211.

  2. Id. at 208.

  3. India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Court is Debated, The Times of India, September 15, 2008.

  4. Nitasha Natu, This Brain Test Maps the Truth, The Times of India, 21 July 2008.

  5. India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Court is Debated, The Times of India, September 15, 2008.

  6. Nitasha Natu, supra note 4.

  7. T. J. Moyer (Chief Justice) and S.P.Anway, Biotechnology and the Bar: A Response to the Growing Divide Between Science and the Legal Environment, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol.22: 671.

  8. Shirley S. Abrahamson, Forward, 83 JUDICATURE 102, 102 (1999).

  9. Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

  10. T. J. Moyer (Chief Justice) and S.P.Anway, supra note 7, at 675.

  11. Id. at 678.

  12. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

  13. General Electric Co v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).

  14. India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Court is Debated, The Times of India, September 15, 2008.

  15. Brandon Keim, India’s Judges Overrule Scientists on ‘Guilty Brain’ Tech, October 17, 2008.

  16. William G. Eckert & Ronald K. Wright, Scientific Evidence in Court, in INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCES 69 (William G. Eckert ed., 1997).

  17. T. J. Moyer (Chief Justice) and S.P.Anway, supra note 7, at 688.

  18. Kirsten Edwards, Ten Things About DNA Contamination That Lawyers Should Know, (2005) 29 Crim LJ 71, citing Paton-Walsh N, False Results Fear Over DNA Tests, The Observer (27 January 2002).

  19. Kirsten Edwards, Ten Things About DNA Contamination That Lawyers Should Know, (2005) 29 Crim LJ 71, at 72.

  20. See Thompson W, Victoria State Coroner’s Inquest Into Death of Jaidyn Leskie (DNA report, 3 December 2003) available under Articles at http://www.bioforensics.com

  21. Kirsten Edwards, supra note 19 at 73.

  22. R v Button [2001] QCA 133

  23. Kirsten Edwards, supra note 19 at 74.

  24. Kirsten Edwards, supra note 19 at 73.

  25. See Kirsten Edwards, supra note 19 at 76.

  26. See Patrick Mugliston, DNA Admissibility and Appeals, PRECEDENT, Issue 85, March/April 2008, 40 at 41.

  27. See T. J. Moyer (Chief Justice) and S.P.Anway, supra note 7, at 692 ff..

  28. Geoffrey Flatman, DNA: A Trial Lawyer’s Perspective, found at http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/medicine/flatman.pdf

  29. Richard Willing, ‘CSI Effect’ Has Juries Wanting More Evidence’, USA Today, October 23, 2008

  30. Patrick Mugliston, supra, note 26 at 41, citing R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317 at 323, per Mason P; R v Karger (2002) 83 SASR 135 at 139, per Doyle CJ.

  31. See Geoffey Flatman, supra, note 28, at 7, citing Hampel J in R v Lucas [1992] V.R. 109, at 118.

  32. Choo Kim-Kwang Raymond, Russell G Smith & Rob McCusker, Future Directions in Technology-Enabled Crime: 2007–2009, at 72, found at www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/78/rpp78.pdf

  33. Commander Barbara Etter, The Forensic Challenges of E-Crime, found at www.acpr.gov.au/pdf/ACPR-CC3.pdf at 2.

  34. Erin Tucker, Facebook a New Source of Evidence, Brisbane Times 22 July 2008, at www.brisbanetimes.com.au

  35. Id.

  36. Id.

  37. Choo Kim-Kwang Raymond, Russell G Smith & Rob McCusker, supra, note 32, at 72.

  38. Commander Barbara Etter, supra, note 33, at 3.

  39. Choo Kim-Kwang Raymond, Russell G Smith & Rob McCusker, supra, note 32, at 79.

  40. Commander Barbara Etter, supra, note 33, at 3.

  41. Choo Kim-Kwang Raymond, Russell G Smith & Rob McCusker, supra, note 32, at 79–80.

  42. Id. citing Casey E 2002, Error Uncertainty and Loss in Digital Evidence, International Journal of Digital Evidence 1(2), atwww.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/A0472DF7-ADC9-7FDE-C80B5E5B306A85C4.pdf

  43. Justice Robert Nicholson, The Paperless Court? Technology and the Courts in the Region, (2002) 12 Journal of Judicial Administration, 63 at 67.

  44. Choo Kim-Kwang Raymond, Russell G Smith & Rob McCusker, supra, note 32, at 75.

  45. Id.

  46. Lee Ann Obringer, How Identity Theft Works, found at http://money.howstuffworks.com/identity-theft.htm

  47. Sean B. Hoar, Assistant US Attorney, District of Oregon, Identity Theft:The Crime of the New Millennium, USA Bulletin, March 2001, Vol. 49, No.2

  48. Id.

  49. Id. They include: 1) Only share identity information when necessary; 2) When in public, exercise caution when providing identity information; 3) Beware “shoulder surfers” in public and do not carry unnecessary identity information in a purse or wallet; 4) Secure your mailbox; 5) Secure information on personal computers and install a firewall to prevent unauthorised access to stored information; 6) Keep financial and medical records in a secure location; 7) Shred nonessential material containing identity information; 8) “Sanitise” the contents of garbage and recycling; 9) Ensure that organisations shred identity information; 10) Remove your name from mailing lists; 11) Carefully inspect financial statements; and 12) Periodically request copies of credit reports.

  50. The descriptions that follow are from a paper produced by the Australian Federal Police, Internet Fraud, which is at http://www.afp.gov.au/national/e-crime/internet_scams.html accessed on 16 January 2009.

  51. OPP Annual Report 2006/07, (Victoria, Australia) at http://www.opp.vic.gov.au, accessed 23 October 2008.

  52. Justice Robert Nicholson, The Paperless Court? Technology and the Courts in the Region, (2002) 12 Journal of Judicial Administration, 63 at 66.

  53. Id., at 75.

  54. Id., at 76–77.

  55. Tony Sutherland, The Internet and Beyond: A New Order for Justice? at http://www.aija.org.au/tech2/present.htm#sutherland, accessed 10 November 2008.

  56. Justice Michael Kirby, supra, note 1, at 209.

References

Forensic Evidence

The Internet and E-Crime

In-Court Technology

DNA

Exonerations

  • Weathered, L. (2004). A question of innocence: facilitating DNA-based exonerations in Australia. Deakin Law Review 13.

  • “Innocence Project” at http://www.innocenceproject.org, accessed 11 November 2008.

  • R v Wayne Edward Butler [2001] QCA 385.

  • R v Frank Alan Button [2001] QCA 133.

Juries and the “CSI Effect”

Prosecutors and Prosecutors’ Duties

Novel Technologies

Education and Training

  • Schmitt, G. Online DNA training targets lawyers, judges. NIJ Journal Issue 256 at 16–18.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1.  , GPO Box 464, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia, Australia

    Stephen Pallaras

Authors
  1. Stephen Pallaras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Pallaras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pallaras, S. New technology: opportunities and challenges for prosecutors. Crime Law Soc Change 56, 71–89 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9300-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9300-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation