After the initial duty of the IT expert to prepare and present his report, in a timely manner, his next obligations are to ratify it and appear at the trial if summoned.
The computer expert report, which must be drawn up in the most rigorous and objective way possible, is presented in the corresponding Court, forming the act of appearance of delivery and ratification of the report. In this act, the computer expert fully affirms and ratifies the report he has prepared. It is thus considered a declaration of judicial public faith, in such a way that it is understood that he is the author of the report and that he is in agreement with the content of the report and its conclusions. Likewise, after this act, no part of the report may be corrected. All its contents, therefore, will then be exposed to the parties in such a way that the opposing party will be able to examine it in order to try to refute it, being able to find (if necessary) the errors not corrected before delivery to the court.
In the ratification in oral proceedings, the work of the computer expert is examined before the judicial authority, where all the parties involved in the process are susceptible to questioning the computer expert for certain aspects of his / her expert work. It is not a pleasant or friendly time, since depending on the nature of the judicial process and what is at stake, the parties can use extreme harshness against the computer expert, in order to destabilize him emotionally and intimidate him so that he incurs in some kind of contradiction that may ruin his testimony.
The concept of criminal contradiction in the new LEC implies the possible existence of contradictory expert reports. And that is why the place where the judge can assess the credibility of each one (along with the rest of the evidence) is in the act of the Trial or Hearing. For this reason, a thorough preparation of the defense of expertise is necessary on the part of its author.
The computer expert must be a good speaker in order to complete the process with a good defense of his expert report. We will highlight the following knowledge as typical of a good speaker:
“The appealed ruling is essentially based on the ineffective and invalid expert evidence that has been provided as the only justification for the facts imputed in the letter of dismissal to the plaintiff, for several reasons explained by the Magistrate of Instance in her ruling. The first is because she understands that the expert presented by the company lacks an official degree in computer science, although at this point it is recognized that the expert is the person who provides computer assistance to the company as a freelancer, which implies at least a practical knowledge of what he is hired for. On the other hand, the informal nature of the expert evidence and the questioning of the chain of custody are argued. Special mention is also made of the breach of the guarantees of the plaintiff’s right to privacy at the time of carrying out the inspection and search of the computer equipment, declaring it proven that the plaintiff was not present. In short, the Magistrate of Instance, evaluating this evidence and the testimonies provided at the oral trial concludes that the defects in the practice of the expert evidence carried out by the company prevent granting probative value to this means of proof, and given that it is essential to prove the facts imputed to the plaintiff, declares the dismissal unjustified.”
From FORENSICTECH we provide our clients with the security of having: