Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below I am curious about the "legality" of "recovering" deleted files. Here is my issue. When files are "recovered" they are pieced together from bits on a hard drive that still remain set in their undeleted form. These bits are magnetic, and as some more astute people on the board have pointed out, can be set from past drive "layers" (layers are really just old points of magnetic settings). Anyway, on to the meat of the question. When a law enforcement group "recovers" these file, a certain amount of "rebuilding" is required. Doesn't this rebuilding essentially ruin the file as evidence? I mean, can a good defense lawyer argue that the alleged "recovered" files were really manipulated by the prosecution, who admittedly has a vested interest in creating a case AGAINST the defense (and therefore manipulated the files in a way that MAY NOT have been their original stucture)? Just curious how this can be legal. Its like the prosecution is "creating" bits from nothing....?
Legality of "recovering" files
- Thread starter newpump
- Start date
Evidentiary infirmities can go either to the admissibility of the evidence or to the weight of the evidence. The judge decides the issue. Admissibility means whether or not it's allowed as evidence at all. Most judges IMO would say these problems go to the weight. In that case, the jury sees the deleted file evidence and it's up to defense counsel to raise reasonable doubts as to its worth. A good lawyer can argue just about anything. 
OTOH, if the judge is persuaded that the reconstruction process compromised the evidence to a sufficiently high degree, he can deem it inadmissible and keep it away from the jury.
.Similar threads
