The growing use of digital evidence from smartphones and social media has led to a digital divide in the US criminal justice system that advantages law enforcement and prosecutors while further increasing the vulnerability of poor people and people of color who rely on public legal assistance. Drawing on a year-long ethnographic study of one of the first digital forensics laboratories in a public defender office, I argue that digital inclusion in the form of better resources for public defenders is necessary for equitable and fair representation in today’s criminal justice system. Findings show that access to digital forensic technologies is an important equalizing tool that allows public defenders to (1) mount strong, data-driven cases; (2) create counter narratives that challenge depictions of marginalized defendants as dangerous; and (3) engage in nuanced storytelling to highlight the complexities of human relationships and life circumstances that shape cases.
AlexanderM (2012) The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.
2.
BackusMSMarcusP (2006) The right to counsel in criminal cases: a national crisis. Hastings Law Journal57: 1031–1130.
3.
BlossW (2007) Escalating U.S. police surveillance after 9/11: an examination of causes and effects. Surveillance & Society4(3): 208–228.
4.
boydd (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) The Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 39–58.
5.
boydd (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
BrayneS (2017) Big data surveillance: the case of policing. American Sociological Review82(5): 977–1008.
DeanM (2013) Authenticating social media in evidentiary proceedings. Criminal Justice28(49): 1–4.
11.
DelgadoRStefancicJ (2012) Critical Race Theory. 2nd ed.New York: New York University Press.
12.
DickinsonE (2012) Addressing environmental racism through storytelling: toward an environmental justice narrative framework. Communication, Culture & Critique5(1): 57–74.
13.
EdwardsFEspositoMHLeeH (2018) Risk of police-involved death by race/ethnicity and place, United States, 2012–2018. American Journal of Public Health108(9): 1241–1248.
14.
FajansEFalkM (2009) Untold stories: restoring narrative to pleading practice. The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute15(3): 3–65.
15.
FaroleDLangtonL (2010) A national assessment of public defender office caseloads. Judicature94(2): 87–90.
16.
GrimmPW (2014) Authenticating digital evidence. GPSolo31(5): 47–49.
17.
HermidaAHernández-SantaolallaV (2018) Twitter and video activism as tools for counter-surveillance: the case of social protests in Spain. Information, Communication & Society21(3): 416–433.
JohEE (2016) The new surveillance discretion: automated suspicion, big data, and policing. Harvard Law & Policy Review10(1): 15–42.
21.
JohEE (2018) Automated policing. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law15(2): 559–563.
22.
KahnD (2010) Presumed guilty until proven innocent: the burden of proof in wrongful conviction claims under state compensation statutes. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform44(1): 123–168.
LaneJ (2018) The Digital Street. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
LaneJRamirezFAPearceKE (2018) Guilty by visible association: socially mediated visibility in gang prosecutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication23(6): 354–369.
26.
LawrenceW (2015) The public defender crisis in America: Gideon, the war on drugs and the fight for equality. Race & Social Justice Law Review5: 167–187.
NissenbaumH (2010) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
OliverM (2003) African American men as “criminal and dangerous”: implications of media portrayals of crime on the “criminalization” of African American men. Journal of African American Studies7(2): 3–18.
32.
ParkerCESwearingenTB (2012) “Tweet” me your status: social media in discovery and at trial. The Federal LawyerJanuary/February: 34–53.
33.
PattonDUBruntonDWDixonA, et al. (2017) Stop and frisk online: theorizing everyday racism in digital policing in the use of social media for identification of criminal conduct and associations. Social Media + Society3(3): 1–10.
34.
PattonDUEschmannRDButlerDA (2013) Internet banging: new trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop. Computers in Human Behavior29(5): A54–A59.
35.
PattonDULeonardPCahillL, et al. (2016) “Police took my homie I dedicate my life 2 his revenge”: Twitter tensions between gang-involved youth and police in Chicago. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment26(3–4): 310–324.
36.
QuickDChooKKR (2017) Pervasive social networking forensics: intelligence and evidence from mobile device extracts. Journal of Network and Computer Applications86: 24–33.
37.
RamirezFA (2018) Social media affordances in the context of police transparency: an analysis of the first public archive of police body camera videos. Journal of Applied Communication Research46(5): 621–640.
38.
RideoutC (2015) Applied legal storytelling: a bibliography. Legal Communication and Rhetoric12: 247–264.
39.
SammonsJ (2014) The Basics of Digital Forensics: The Primer for Getting Started in Digital Forensics. Waltham, MA: Syngress.
40.
SandersCBHannemS (2012) Policing “the risky”: technology and surveillance in everyday patrol work. Canadian Review of Sociology49(4): 389–410.
41.
SmileyC (2015) From silence to propagation: understanding the relationship between “Stop Snitchin” and “YOLO.”Deviant Behavior36(1): 1–16.
42.
StevensRBrawnerBMGilliard-MatthewsS, et al. (2017) The digital hood: social media use among youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods. New Media & Society19(6): 950–967.
43.
StuartF (2011) Constructing police abuse after Rodney King: how skid row residents and the Los Angeles police department contest video evidence. Law & Social Inquiry36(2): 327–353.
44.
StuartFArmentaAOsborneM (2015) Legal control of marginal groups. Annual Review of Law and Social Science11(1): 235–254.
45.
TaylorM (2016, November17) New York city opens its $10 million cybercrime lab. Forensic Magazine.
46.
ThompsonLLeeJ (2004) Who cares if police become violent? Explaining approval of police use of force using a national sample. Sociological Inquity74(3): 381–410.
