Geospatial Technologies in the Courtroom

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Geotechnologies and the Environment book series (GEOTECH, volume 11)

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.

Keywords

Admissibility Rules of evidence Demonstrative evidence Scientific evidence Computer-generated evidence Frye test Daubert Expert witness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barakat B, Miller B (2004) Authentication of digital photographs under the “pictorial testimony” theory: a response to critics. Fla Bar J 78(7):38–43Google Scholar
  2. Berry v. CSX Transportation, Inc (1998) 709 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)Google Scholar
  3. Bird S (2001) Scientific certainty: research versus forensic perspectives. J Forensic Sci 46(4):978–981Google Scholar
  4. 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 Google Scholar
  5. Cho G (2005) Geographic information science: mastering the legal issues. Katholieke University, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 153–166Google Scholar
  7. Cohen KS (2008) Expert witnessing and scientific testimony: surviving in the courtroom. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig BJ (2007) Online satellite and aerial images: issues and analysis. [Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08–11]. N. D. Law Rev 83:547–578Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Crowsey R (2002b) Using spatial information. http://www.crowsey.com/pdf/litigatorsGuide.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2008
  12. Crowsey R (2003) Geographic intelligence risk reduction checklist. http://www.crowsey.com/pdf/CheckList.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2009
  13. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1992) 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dischinger SS, Wallace LA (2005) Geographic information systems: coming to a courtroom near you. Colo Lawyer 34(4):11–23Google Scholar
  16. Dow Chemical Company v. United States (1986) 476 U.S. 227Google Scholar
  17. 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 1–124Google Scholar
  18. 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 86:1655Google Scholar
  19. Fiedler BS (2003) Are your eyes deceiving you?: the evidentiary crisis regarding the admissibility of computer generated evidence. N Y Law Sch Law Rev 48:295–321Google Scholar
  20. Flamm S, Solomon SH (2004) Admissibility of digital exhibits in litigation. In: Samuel C, Solomon H (eds) Lynbrook. DOAR Litigation Consulting, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 145–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foote KE, Lynch M (2000) Legal issues relating to GIS. The geographer’s craft. University of Colorado at Boulder, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  23. Frye v. United States (1923) 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.. Cir 1923)Google Scholar
  24. General Electric Co. et al. v. Joiner et ux (1997) 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508Google Scholar
  25. Gonzalez EA (2009) Advanced trial handbook – demonstrative evidence. http://www.caught.net/prose/advtt/hbdemons.htm. Accessed 14 Jan 2009
  26. Hemmens C, Cooper J, Hatch V (2007) Law enforcement case law. Crim Justice Rev 32(3):303–328. doi: 10.1177/0734016807304917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ito A (2011) Legal aspects of satellite remote sensing. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janssen K, Crompvoets J (eds) (2012) Geographic data and the law – defining new challenges. Leuven University Press, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Krygier J, Wood D (2011) Making maps: a visual guide to map design for GIS. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999) 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167Google Scholar
  32. Kyllo v. United States (2001) 533 U.S. 27Google Scholar
  33. Levi DF, Nowinski PA, Killefer G (2013) Federal trial objections, revision 7. James Pub., Inc., Costa MesaGoogle Scholar
  34. 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):219–264Google Scholar
  35. Marks SC (2003) The admissibility and use of demonstrative aids. The Brief 32:4Google Scholar
  36. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305Google Scholar
  37. Monmonier MS (1996) How to lie with maps. University Of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. NDAA (2004) Connecticut Supreme Court issues new standard for computer-generated evidence. Update Express, MayGoogle Scholar
  39. NLECTC (2001) Technology goes to court. TechBeat (Spring)Google Scholar
  40. Onsrud HJ (1992) Evidence generated from GIS. GIS Law 1(3):1–9Google Scholar
  41. Pratt FH (2001) The use of computer-generated exhibits in federal criminal cases. Defender Services Division Training Branch, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. State of Connecticut v. Alfred Swinton (2004) 268 Conn. 781; 847 A.2d 921Google Scholar
  44. US Constitution. Amendment IVGoogle Scholar
  45. United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S.Ct. 945Google Scholar
  46. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Roedl
    • 1
  • Gregory A. Elmes
    • 1
  • Jamison Conley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geology and GeographyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations