What we review
- Law enforcement cell site and CDR reports
- Search warrant and court order affidavits
- Device extraction examination reports
- Opposing expert reports and disclosures
- Rule 26 and state-law expert reports
- Prior testimony and transcripts
- Maps, charts, and demonstrative exhibits
- Prior digital evidence work in appellate and post-conviction matters
What we look for
- Methodology: Is the approach accepted in the field, documented, and applied consistently? Could another qualified analyst reproduce the result?
- Accuracy: Do the maps, tables, and summaries match the underlying records? Are time zones, sector orientation, and units handled correctly?
- Overstatement: Does the conclusion go beyond what the data supports, such as "at the residence" when the records only support "in the area"?
- Omissions: Is there data that contradicts the conclusion but wasn't addressed? Were alternative explanations considered?
- Affidavit support: Does the digital evidence described in an affidavit actually support the probable cause it's used for?
Reviewing these analyses is the same work Andrew McDermott did as a designated technical reviewer for digital data cases within his federal task force and across partner jurisdictions, and later as a peer reviewer of law enforcement reports and affidavits at Nighthawk.
What you receive
A written review memo identifying each issue and why it matters, a formal rebuttal report where needed, suggested lines of examination or cross-examination, and testimony at hearings and trial. Appellate and post-conviction review is available for prior digital evidence work.