ServingNew York, New Jersey, and Connecticut
24/7 incident response1-800-868-8189Contact GDF

Field note / expert evidence

Frye, Daubert, and the technical record behind the opinion

The legal tests differ. The examiner's practical obligation is constant: preserve the source, use an explainable method, test alternatives, and state the limits.

Marble lobby of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in Manhattan
Photograph by Carol M. Highsmith, Library of Congress.

New York state courts generally address novel scientific evidence through Frye, while federal courts apply Rule 702 and Daubert case law. Counsel decides which authorities control and how to frame an admissibility challenge. A digital forensics expert is responsible for the quality of the technical foundation placed in counsel's hands.

Expert opinion workflow prepared for New York Frye and federal Daubert scrutiny
Use the six checkpoints to review the proposition, sources, method, competing accounts, opinion limits, and the explanation prepared for questioning.

Begin with the proposition that will be offered

A tool name is not a methodology. The work should identify the proposition, the source material, the acquisition method, the artifacts relied on, the validation performed, and the inferential step from observation to opinion. If the opinion depends on a timestamp, deleted record, device association, identity event, location estimate, or classifier output, the examiner should be able to explain what produced that record and what else could produce it.

That preparation is useful long before a motion. It helps counsel decide whether the evidence supports an affirmative opinion, a narrower statement, a rebuttal point, or no opinion at all.

Build challenge readiness into the case file

Retain forensic images, native exports, hash records, tool versions, settings, query terms, scripts, error logs, notes, and representative output. Corroborate important findings through another artifact or method when practical. Record unsuccessful tests and contrary evidence. A clean workpaper trail is more persuasive than a report that sounds certain but cannot be replayed.

  • Define the disputed technical fact before selecting tools
  • Preserve the highest-quality source and document custody
  • Record settings, versions, filters, errors, and exclusions
  • Test ordinary and competing explanations
  • Separate observation, inference, supplied fact, and legal assumption

Primary and public sources

Discuss expert analysis for a pending matter

Describe the work, the deadline, and the people authorized to act. Do not send evidence through the public form.

Contact GDF