Research and Publications
Examining Digital Evidence, Defense Readiness, and Wrongful Convictions
The Digital Innocence Initiative (DII) develops practitioner-informed research and publications based on defense casework, public records, judicial decisions, public defender training, and continuing review.
DII’s work examines a recurring question:
What happens when potentially important digital evidence exists but is not identified, preserved, obtained, understood, or independently evaluated by the defense?
The findings inform DII’s training, resources, and continuing work on digital-evidence readiness.
Featured Publication
Advancing a National Digital Evidence Readiness Framework for Public Defense
A Practitioner-Developed Framework to Prevent and Overturn Wrongful Convictions with Digital Evidence
Michael Udvardy | Digital Innocence Initiative | August 2026
The foundational paper documents how lessons from casework and public-defense implementation developed into the National Digital Evidence Readiness Framework for Public Defense.
Udvardy, Michael. Advancing a National Digital Evidence Readiness Framework for Public Defense: A Practitioner-Developed Framework to Prevent and Overturn Wrongful Convictions with Digital Evidence. Digital Innocence Initiative, 2026.
Research Focus
DII’s research centers on five connected areas:
- Digital-Evidence Readiness — how the defense identifies, preserves, obtains, understands, and evaluates digital evidence.
- Missing and Time-Sensitive Evidence — how important evidence can be lost or overlooked when it is not identified early.
- Independent Evaluation — how underlying records, collection methods, and technical conclusions should be tested.
- Digital Evidence and Wrongful Convictions — how digital evidence can contribute to wrongful outcomes or establish innocence.
- New Technology and Older Evidence — how advances in forensic knowledge and technology can create new opportunities to examine surviving devices, records, and forensic material.
Practitioner Review Findings
DII’s practitioner review identified at least 28 people who were wrongfully accused or convicted in cases involving material digital evidence.
Among the reviewed cases:
- 20 wrongfully convicted people collectively served approximately 197 years
- 8 wrongfully accused people collectively spent approximately 28 days in jail
Historical cell-site evidence emerged as the most prominent recurring issue: 12 of the 20 wrongful-conviction cases raised significant questions about whether the historical 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.
Explore Post-Conviction Digital-Evidence Review
Cases Illustrating the Research
DII’s research is informed by defense cases including:
- Vernon Horn and Marquis Jackson — missing provider information allowed the historical telephone evidence to be evaluated differently.
- Cecil Grant — unexamined telephone records contradicted key testimony and contributed to a new trial.
- Anthony Christiana — evidence recovered from an older cell phone materially contradicted an eyewitness description and the murder charge was ultimately dropped.
Selected Publications by Research Theme
Digital Evidence and Defense Readiness
The Evolution of Digital Evidence in Criminal Cases
How digital evidence developed from a specialized forensic discipline into a routine part of criminal investigation—and why defense readiness must develop with it.
Digital Evidence and Wrongful Convictions
Causes and Impact of Digital Evidence in Wrongful Convictions
How incomplete collection, misinterpretation, unequal defense resources, and limited independent review can contribute to wrongful outcomes.
From Local Reform to National Impact
Why individual case assistance alone cannot close the broader digital-evidence readiness gap across public defense.
Post-Conviction Review
Preventing and Overturning Wrongful Convictions Through Digital Evidence
An early explanation of the need for structured review of older convictions involving material digital-evidence questions.
Explore Post-Conviction Review
New Technology and Older Devices
Levels of Mobile-Device Data Recovery
Why the type of forensic extraction matters and how an earlier examination may have obtained only part of the data available from a device.
Accessing Locked Mobile Devices
Why a device once described as locked or inaccessible should not automatically be considered permanently unavailable.
Unlock New Digital Evidence Using the Latest Technology
Why preserved devices and earlier unsuccessful forensic efforts may warrant renewed technical assessment.
New Evidence From Old Devices
How older or less common devices may contain evidence that earlier tools could not access or interpret.
Time-Sensitive Evidence
Google Timeline Location Data
The potential evidentiary value of account-based location history and why it should be considered promptly.
A Call to Preserve Google Location Data
How platform-level changes can affect the availability of evidence relevant to people seeking to establish innocence.
Understanding DII’s Research
DII’s research is practitioner-developed and informed by casework, public records, judicial decisions, published reports, and continuing review.
Identifying a digital-evidence issue does not, by itself, establish innocence, professional error, or forensic unreliability. It may indicate that evidence warrants closer examination, an earlier conclusion should be tested, or additional records or qualified assistance are needed.
DII updates its findings as cases, records, technology, and published information develop.