Post-Conviction Digital-Evidence Review
Older Convictions Deserve the Benefit of Today’s Knowledge and Technology
Digital evidence has been used to investigate, accuse, and convict people for decades.
Yet many older convictions have never received an independent digital-evidence review using the records, technical knowledge, and forensic capabilities available today.
The Digital Innocence Initiative (DII) is advancing a criteria-based approach to identifying older convictions that warrant renewed examination.
The objective is not to reopen every case. It is to identify convictions where renewed digital-evidence review could materially affect confidence in the result.
Access Post-Conviction Review Resources
What DII’s Practitioner Review Found
DII examined wrongful-accusation and wrongful-conviction cases in which digital evidence materially affected the investigation, prosecution, defense, or later outcome.
The review identified at least 28 people who were wrongfully accused or convicted:
- 20 wrongfully convicted people who collectively served approximately 197 years
- 8 wrongfully accused people who collectively spent approximately 28 days in jail
Historical cell-site evidence emerged as a clear priority.
12 of the 20 wrongful-conviction cases raised significant questions about whether the cell-site evidence had been adequately evaluated by the defense.
The cases also revealed recurring issues involving computer forensics, video evidence, inaccessible devices, and incomplete technical evaluation.
The findings raise a straightforward question:
What could a qualified digital-evidence review reveal using the records, knowledge, and technology available today?
A Priority: Historical Cell-Site Evidence
Older cell-site cases may present particular problems because the underlying records, provider information, or technical assumptions needed to evaluate the evidence may be incomplete.
Historical cell-site records also do not ordinarily establish a device’s precise location or identify who possessed it without additional evidence.
DII’s findings support systematic screening of appropriate older convictions involving material historical cell-site evidence.
Vernon Horn and Marquis Jackson
The wrongful convictions of Vernon Horn and Marquis Jackson illustrate why.
Historical telephone records had been produced, but important provider information needed to meaningfully evaluate the cell-site evidence was absent.
That information was later recovered through the continuing Federal Defender reinvestigation, allowing the evidence to be evaluated in a materially different way.
Horn and Jackson ultimately had their convictions vacated and charges dismissed after together serving approximately 34 years in prison.
Having the records is not necessarily the same as having the complete evidence needed to understand them.
Independent Review Can Change the Evidentiary Picture
In Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, Mike Udvardy examined historical telephone records involving a key prosecution witness and identified conflicts between the records and testimony presented at trial.
In 2026, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied extensively on his investigative report and testimony in concluding that the unexamined records could have created reasonable doubt and ordered Cecil Grant’s convictions vacated and a new trial.
Objective digital records can test testimony and materially change the evidentiary picture years after a conviction.
New Technology Can Change What Is Possible
Forensic capabilities continue to evolve.
A device that could not be accessed years ago may be accessible today. Older extractions or forensic files may also yield additional information when examined with newer extraction, unlocking, recovery, repair, or analytical methods.
A prior unsuccessful examination does not necessarily establish that no recoverable evidence remains.
The question becomes:
What can current technology and technical knowledge reveal now that could not be meaningfully examined then?
Resources for Post-Conviction Review
Post-conviction review is part of DII’s National Digital Evidence Readiness Framework for Public Defense.
The Digital Evidence Toolbox provides practical post-conviction checklists and technical guidance for individual cases. Public defender agencies seeking an office-level pathway can implement the work through DERU—the Digital Evidence Review Unit.
Access Post-Conviction Review Resources
Learn About the DERU Partnership
A National Opportunity
DII calls on public defender offices, appellate and post-conviction units, innocence organizations, and defense practitioners to identify older convictions involving material digital evidence that warrant renewed review.
Historical cell-site cases are an important starting point, but renewed review should also consider older device examinations, surviving devices, incomplete records, and evidence that newer technology may now make accessible.
A conviction should not remain unexamined simply because relevant digital evidence was incomplete, inaccessible, misunderstood, or beyond the capabilities of the technology available at the time.