Abstract
The function of a court is to resolve disputes through a legal process. With few exceptions, the progression of a legal case will follow the strict guidelines of rules and codes developed from numerous court decisions to fairly and efficiently securing a just determination. All federal courts adhere to a flexible set of rules published in the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE ). The FRE provides rules and definitions governing general provisions, judicial notice, presumptions, relevance , privileges, witnesses , expert witnesses , hearsay , and authentication . However, there are as yet no special rules governing the use of geospatial technologies or spatial data . From a pragmatic legal perspective, spatial data differs immensely from the traditional form of evidence. However, the power of spatial information is extremely persuasive and compelling in litigation. While the acceptance of spatial data and methods has increased in litigation, there are also several issues that merit careful consideration when using spatial data. This chapter examines key rules and court decisions that impact the potential admissibility of spatial data and technologies in a modern courtroom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Federal Rules of Evidence . Amended 01 December 2012. Available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/rules-evidence.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2013.
References
Barakat B, Miller B (2004) Authentication of digital photographs under the “pictorial testimony” theory: a response to critics. Fla Bar J 78(7):38–43
Berry v. CSX Transportation, Inc (1998) 709 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
Bird S (2001) Scientific certainty: research versus forensic perspectives. J Forensic Sci 46(4):978–981
Cheng EK, Yoon AH (2005) Does Frye or Daubert matter? A study of scientific admissibility standards. Va Law Rev 91(2):471–513. doi:10.2307/3649430
Cho G (2005) Geographic information science: mastering the legal issues. Katholieke University, Leuven
Cho G (2012) Geographic data and legal liability issues. In: Janssen K (ed) Legal aspects of geographic data and spatial data infrastructures. Katholik University, Leuven, pp 153–166
Cohen KS (2008) Expert witnessing and scientific testimony: surviving in the courtroom. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009) Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Craig BJ (2007) Online satellite and aerial images: issues and analysis. [Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08–11]. N. D. Law Rev 83:547–578
Crowsey R (2002a) A legal assistant’s guide to legal applications of geospatial information. http://www.crowsey.com/pdf/spatialInformation.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2008
Crowsey R (2002b) Using spatial information. http://www.crowsey.com/pdf/litigatorsGuide.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2008
Crowsey R (2003) Geographic intelligence risk reduction checklist. http://www.crowsey.com/pdf/CheckList.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2009
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1992) 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786
Delaney TQ, McMahon CM (2000) Jumping over the evidence hurdle at trial. Natl Law J. http://www.brinksgilson.com/news_events/index.php?action=view&publication_id=116. Accessed 28 Aug 2013
Dischinger SS, Wallace LA (2005) Geographic information systems: coming to a courtroom near you. Colo Lawyer 34(4):11–23
Dow Chemical Company v. United States (1986) 476 U.S. 227
Faigman DL, Saks MJ, Sanders J (eds) (2006) Admissibility of scientific evidence. In: Modern scientific evidence: the law and science of expert testimony, vol 1. West Pub Co, Eagan, pp 1–124
Farber DA (2008) Harnessing the power of information for the next generation of environmental law: II Use and abuse of information: modeling climate change and its impacts: law, policy, and science. Tex Law Rev 86:1655
Fiedler BS (2003) Are your eyes deceiving you?: the evidentiary crisis regarding the admissibility of computer generated evidence. N Y Law Sch Law Rev 48:295–321
Flamm S, Solomon SH (2004) Admissibility of digital exhibits in litigation. In: Samuel C, Solomon H (eds) Lynbrook. DOAR Litigation Consulting, New York
Flanagan DC, Ascough JC, Nearing MA, Laflen JM (2001) The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. In: Harmon RS, Doe WW III (eds) Landscape erosion and evolution modeling. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 145–199
Foote KE, Lynch M (2000) Legal issues relating to GIS. The geographer’s craft. University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder
Frye v. United States (1923) 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.. Cir 1923)
General Electric Co. et al. v. Joiner et ux (1997) 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508
Gonzalez EA (2009) Advanced trial handbook – demonstrative evidence. http://www.caught.net/prose/advtt/hbdemons.htm. Accessed 14 Jan 2009
Hemmens C, Cooper J, Hatch V (2007) Law enforcement case law. Crim Justice Rev 32(3):303–328. doi:10.1177/0734016807304917
Ito A (2011) Legal aspects of satellite remote sensing. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston
Janssen K, Crompvoets J (eds) (2012) Geographic data and the law – defining new challenges. Leuven University Press, Leuven
Krouse AJ, Ferry MM, Crowsey RC (2000) Satellite imagery: the space odyssey arrives in the courtroom. http://www.crowsey.com/pdf/spaceOdyssey.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2008
Krygier J, Wood D (2011) Making maps: a visual guide to map design for GIS. Guilford Press, New York
Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167
Kyllo v. United States (2001) 533 U.S. 27
Levi DF, Nowinski PA, Killefer G (2013) Federal trial objections, revision 7. James Pub., Inc., Costa Mesa
Markowitz KJ (2002) Legal challenges and market rewards to the use and acceptance of remote sensing and digital information as evidence. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 12(2):219–264
Marks SC (2003) The admissibility and use of demonstrative aids. The Brief 32:4
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305
Monmonier MS (1996) How to lie with maps. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago
NDAA (2004) Connecticut Supreme Court issues new standard for computer-generated evidence. Update Express, May
NLECTC (2001) Technology goes to court. TechBeat (Spring)
Onsrud HJ (1992) Evidence generated from GIS. GIS Law 1(3):1–9
Pratt FH (2001) The use of computer-generated exhibits in federal criminal cases. Defender Services Division Training Branch, Washington, DC
Spencer EL (2006) Use and misuse of technical data telling the scientific story to scientific virgins. In: American Law Institute – American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education ALI-ABA Course of Study, pp 1–9. http://www.grahamdunn.com/go/articles/use-and-misuse-of-technical-data-telling-the-scientific-story-to-scientific-virgins. Accessed 26 Feb 2009
State of Connecticut v. Alfred Swinton (2004) 268 Conn. 781; 847 A.2d 921
US Constitution. Amendment IV
United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S.Ct. 945
Wells D (2012) In brief: Law 101: legal guide for the forensic expert. NIJ J (269):24–25. http://www.nij.gov/nij/journals/269/inbrief.htm. Accessed 23 Apr 2012
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roedl, G., Elmes, G.A., Conley, J. (2014). Geospatial Technologies in the Courtroom. In: Elmes, G., Roedl, G., Conley, J. (eds) Forensic GIS. Geotechnologies and the Environment, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8757-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8757-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8756-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8757-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)