The biggest mistake that investigators can make is to implicate the wrong person for a crime. Investigators must be careful when communicating information to law enforcement, ISPs, and other third parties because transcription errors in search warrants and other documents can cause confusion and waste time, and lead to unforeseen consequences” (Eoghan Casey, 2011, p. 259.) Let’s talk what can happen (has happened) in criminal cases involving digital evidence. For this discussion, you will need to report out what has happened (or is happening right now) in a real case. Use the readings and the resources available through online searches to identify a case. Can’t locate any cases? Try these databases: K&L Gates blog/website – The site contains both case summaries and an electronic discovery case database of over 2,000 electronic discovery cases from federal and state jurisdictions, dating from 2004 to present. The database allows you to filter your search by e-discovery rules, context, particular issues as well as by keyword. Justia.com – can provide case documents if you know the case name. Your report to the class should include: a brief summary of the case which includes how digital evidence was involved. your evaluation (backed by facts) of the clarity of the presentation of the digital forensic analysis your evaluation (backed by facts) that the court decision was consistent (or not consistent) with the evidence as presented.

Then respond to the student below:

Jonah Johnson

                                                   Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter 

Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter Summary of Case Between Oct. 2012 and July 2014, the victim Conrad Roy attempted suicide several times by various means, including overdosing on over-the-counter medication, drowning, water poisoning, and suffocation. None of these attempts succeeded, as the victim abandoned each attempt or sought rescue. At first, defendant Michelle Carter, who was the victim’s girlfriend, urged the victim to seek professional help for his mental illness. In the days leading to July 12, 2014, the victim continued planning his suicide, including by securing a water pump that he would use to generate carbon monoxide in his closed truck. That night of the suicide, the victim called Carter, she later texted a friend saying “he just called me and there was a loud noise like a motor and I heard moaning like someone was in pain, and he wouldn’t answer when I said his name. I stayed on the phone for like 20 minutes and that’s all I heard…I think he just killed himself.” At age seventeen, Carter was charged with involuntary manslaughter as a youthful offender for the suicide death of Roy, age eighteen. At a non-jury trial in Massachusetts superior court, the judge found that the victim got out of the truck, seeking fresh air, in a way similar to how he had abandoned his prior suicide attempts. When defendant realized he had gotten out of the truck, she instructed him to get back in, knowing that it had become a toxic environment and knowing the victim’s fears, doubts, and fragile mental state. The victim followed that instruction. Thereafter, defendant, knowing the victim was inside the truck and that the water pump was operating—the judge noted that she could hear the sound of the pump and the victim’s coughing—took no steps to save him. She did not call emergency personnel, contact the victim’s family, or instruct him to get out of the truck” (Commonwealth v. Carter | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis). In this case, the court had records of the cellphone calls and text messages leading up to the day Conrad took his life. This was the most significant part of the case that led to the judge’s decision to charge Michelle with the actions she took involving encouraging Conrad to commit suicide. “Commonwealth v. Carter | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis.” Community, www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-commonwealth-v-carter. ‌Digital Evidence The evidence used in the case was retrieved from their phones which showcase the text messages and phone calls. The text messages were the best forensic evidence to assist the judge in charging Ms. Carter for her actions leading up to the suicide of Mr. Roy. Ms. Carter suggested to Mr. Roy the following: “M: Its okay, Why haven’t you done it yet tho? C: I’m too messed up to M: What are you talking about C: my head M: You can’t think about it You just have to do it? You said you were gonna do it like I don’t get why you arent C: I don’t get it either. idk M: So I guess you aren’t gonna do it then, all that for nothing M: I’m just confused like you were so ready and determined C: I am gonna eventfully C: I really don’t know what I’m waiting for.. but I have everything lined up M: No you’re not Conrad. Last night was it. You keep pushing it off and you say you’ll do it but u never do. Its always gonna be that way if u don’t take action M: You’re just making it harder on yourself by pushing it off, you just have to do it” (Shiffer and Felbin) The presentation of the digital forensics evidence spoke for itself when proving how Ms. Carter was reckless with her words and pushing Mr. Roy to follow through with his plan to take his life. The case displayed all the messages day to day of their conservation. One interesting fact I thought was odd was how Ms. Carter’s legal team noted how Massachusetts doesn’t have any “law against encouraging someone to commit suicide and has said prosecutors are stretching the definition of involuntary manslaughter” (Bidgood). Yet, her team did everything to show her words weren’t a factor in Mr. Roy’s death. Shiffer, Emily, and Sarah Felbin. “Michelle Carter Texted Her Boyfriend More than 1,000 Times in the Week before His Suicide.” Women’s Health, 29 Mar. 2022, www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a28284327/michelle-carter-text-messages-conrad-roy/. ‌ Bidgood, Jess. “She’s Accused of Texting Him to Suicide. Is That Enough to Convict?” The New York Times, 6 June 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/suicide-texting-manslaughter-trial.html. Accessed 6 Nov. 2022. Court Decision “The court held that there was sufficient evidence that supported defendant’s involuntary manslaughter conviction for ordering the victim, her boyfriend, to complete his suicide because her inculpatory statement was corroborated, and she overpowered his will, creating a high likelihood of substantial harm. The court further held that involuntary manslaughter law was not unconstitutionally vague as applied because it gave notice she might be so charged for reckless verbal conduct causing a victim’s suicide. Her conviction did not offend free speech because her conduct was not necessarily related to speech, and criminal conduct speech was unprotected. The court also noted that her conviction as a youthful offender was proper because her crime inherently inflicted serious bodily harm” (Commonwealth v. Carter | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis). “Commonwealth v. Carter | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis.” Community, www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-commonwealth-v-carter.