PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "This is the first time an appellate court has found that this information is subject to Brady disclosure — an issue that we expect many courts will have to grapple with given the widespread use of face recognition technology in criminal cases. The decision recognizes, at the appellate level, a position that defense attorneys around the country have been arguing for years. It contains powerful language on the state’s burden to disclose information about face recognition as an unproven technology to uphold the due process rights of a defendant. Broadly speaking, this decision will be helpful to defense attorneys filing discovery motions and otherwise seeking to challenge the state’s use of face recognition technology to identify their clients."
-----------------------------------------------------------
POST: "NJ Appellate Decision: Defense Entitled to Face Recognition Information," by Sacejewia White, published by Forensic Resources: Office of Indigent Defence Services, on June 29, 2023. (The Office of Indigent Defense Services provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating complex scientific evidence through its Forensic Resource Counsel. Lawyer Sarah Rackley Olson works with public defenders and private appointed counsel and improves counsel’s ability to understand forensic science evidence and achieve better outcomes in their cases.)
Case Background
Last September, the NACDL joined forces with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to file an amicus brief in support of the defense in New Jersey v. Arteaga.
The question before the Appellate Division was whether the defense is entitled to information about how a face recognition search identifying the defendant as the suspect in the case was conducted. The trial court rejected the defense’s argument.
Appellate Division’s Ruling
On June 6, citing and adopting many of the arguments set forth in NACDL’s co-authored amicus brief, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding that the defendant is entitled to the requested discovery in accordance with Brady v. Maryland.
The court found that “defendant through his expert, and the secondary sources cited by defense counsel and amici, provide us convincing evidence of FRT’s [face recognition technology’s] novelty, the human agency involved in generating images, and the fact FRT’s veracity has not been tested or found reliable on an evidential basis by any New Jersey court.”
The case is now remanded to the lower court for an order directing the state to fulfill the discovery request.
You can read the full opinion here.
Significance and Impact
This is the first time an appellate court has found that this information is subject to Brady disclosure — an issue that we expect many courts will have to grapple with given the widespread use of face recognition technology in criminal cases.
The decision recognizes, at the appellate level, a position that defense attorneys around the country have been arguing for years.
It contains powerful language on the state’s burden to disclose information about face recognition as an unproven technology to uphold the due process rights of a defendant.
Broadly speaking, this decision will be helpful to defense attorneys filing discovery motions and otherwise seeking to challenge the state’s use of face recognition technology to identify their clients.
NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center is available to assist defense attorneys on cases involving new surveillance tools, technologies, and tactics—such as face recognition—that infringe on the constitutional rights of people in America.
If you have a case involving face recognition or other types of surveillance tools, you can contact the Fourth Amendment Center at 4AC@nacdl.org."
The entire post can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-1234880143/
-------------------------------------------------------------
