May 1, 2026
Observations In The Land of Experts
"It is impossible for a person to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows"
-Epictetus
Being dubbed an “expert” is a double-edged sword. It can, and often does, indicate a higher degree of knowledge about a particular topic or practice. The formal designation of “expert” also frequently means you can demand a higher price for your expertise. It can also lead to an inflated sense of self-importance, as I’ve observed repeatedly over the years.
I was only ever adjudicated an “expert” once in my time in law enforcement. The irony was, for all of the trials and testimony I had in my home jurisdiction, it was a case outside of that jurisdiction for which I was put forth as and deemed an “expert” by the Court. For my time both in and outside of law enforcement, I’ve observed this as a common practice by prosecutors – that is, to NOT have their law enforcement witnesses who may have expertise in a particular arena to be deemed an “expert”. It’s a curious approach, and one that is being updated in the modern era with the increased emphasis on technology and technological expertise in both criminal and civil investigations & litigation.
Regardless, it wasn’t until I was well into my time working in the private sector that I not only was deemed an “expert” by the court, but truly understood what that means. On one hand, it means you’ve achieved something. A disinterested third party has audited your credentials and listened to qualifications and even given the opposing side an opportunity to challenge or object to those things (as I wrote about for Forensic Focus here), and everyone has come to a consensus - sometimes even agreement - that you’re an expert.
On the other hand, those who have had their expertise challenged know very well that the standard for being adjudicated an expert is generally that you know slightly more than the average Joe on the street about a topic. I happen to know a bit about motorcycles, so I guess using the standard rubric for adjudicating experts, that means I could be an expert on motorcycles. Problem is, you probably don’t want me working on your motorcycle.
And there’s the dichotomy of being an expert.
The Expert Personality
Generally, it seems that experts in any given discipline are knowledgeable, trained and experienced in that discipline. DF/IR is typically no exception to this, and admittedly the DF side of the practice leans much heavier on this than the IR side. But another difference I’ve observed between law enforcement experts and private sector experts is their personality. Experts in law enforcement generally don’t tout themselves as experts in much of anything, nor do they carry themselves as such. There are natural exceptions to this. Anyone who’s ever listened to a CAST Agent testify knows one large exception. The private sector is a different story. Even more interesting is when an LE expert becomes a private sector expert.
Consider one example from a recent conference: I was manning the table for my employer, promoting our services and hoping to meet new contacts. Next to me was another forensic expert firm that has a wide range of services, mostly in the physical space – accident reconstruction, structural defects, etc. The expert on-hand was a retired LEO from an agency where my former supervisor used to work, so I took the opportunity to ask if she knew him, how long she worked there, etc. To say she was arrogant is an understatement. To listen to her, you’d think she invented the field of accident reconstruction, and don’t try to suggest otherwise. She was abrasive and not likeable. I can only imagine how she comes off to a jury or judge.
DF/IR is not immune to this. You’ll generally find two types of DF/IR experts – those who seek to learn, network and grow and those who want to tell you all of the great things they do and how busy they are doing all of the great things. They also tend to have an air of superiority, which is a brand of arrogance. Meanwhile, we’re all largely doing great things, it’s just that many of us don’t crow about it all the time, either because of humility or because of the fact we have a lot of plates to spin (or both). We have a great set of experts, particularly in the private sector. As the practice of DF/IR has grown, so has the knowledge base and talent pool. We are now fortunate as a practice to have many people who have been doing this for a long time, and have sought to learn and grow their expertise and contribute to the community. In fact, DF/IR has more community involvement than any forensic practice I can think of, which is a huge asset and distinction.
Having a strong personality as an expert is crucial. If you testify, you need to have your DF/IR ducks in a row and know the case and your analysis inside and out. You need to have thick skin and put up with opposing counsel throwing jabs during voir dire or cross-examination. You need to have a likable personality, so the finders of face and stakeholders don’t get put off by you during testimony. You need to be able to articulate the technical things you did to non-technical people. And you need to be resolute in your confidence in your work. But strong personality doesn’t have to equal arrogance. Knowing the value you have added and being prepared and thorough doesn’t have to come with a side dish (or main course) of being a jerk.
The Evolving Legal Landscape
Earlier, I alluded to the fact that anecdotal observation has indicated that LE practitioners with particular expertise don’t seem to be pushed forth as experts to the Court very often. This practice, while common, is also in conflict with what the Courts are increasingly deciding.
Consider a recent decision out of New Jersey: State v. Jule Hannah (A-44-24) (089819) where the lower court initially ruled that the detective (analyst) in the case could testify as a layperson – not an expert - with regard to historical cell site location information (CSLI). In the summary of the issues in this case, the published decision states:
In limiting the scope of Detective Leyman’s testimony as a lay witness, the trial court stressed that there was to be no testimony “about the location of any phone at any particular time.” The trial court also gave several limiting instructions to the jury during Detective Leyman’s testimony, directing that they should not consider CSLI alone as evidence that a phone was in a particular place and advising that a cell phone’s connection to a cell tower does not indicate whether the cell phone was in any particular location.
Despite the trial court’s instructions, Detective Leyman testified that the CSLI could indicate where a suspect was at the time of Lopez’s death. His testimony also associated the cell towers to which defendant’s cell phone connected to the path Lopez traveled that day, consistent with the State’s theory that defendant was in Lopez’s car prior to the homicide. Then, in summation, the State told the jury that a cell phone must be close to the tower it connects to, stating that its proximity must be “a stone’s throw” away.
Putting the obvious evidence+ testimonial errors and dismissal of the Court’s ruling about the testimony aside, this case points out a great example of where expert designations should be not only used, but actively sought. According to New Jersey Rules of Evidence, such testimony must be given by an Expert, not a layperson. Accordingly, the appellate court confirmed this and the argument that the defendant was denied a fair trial because of it.
The problem is, while evidence areas such as cell phone data, cell site location data and cloud-based data are pervasive in our lives and leads to outstanding evidence in any number of legal disputes, they are also increasingly complex, which leads to faulty analysis, misinterpretation and potentially bad conclusions. This can have a micro-effect on the case or the examiner, but it can also have a macro-effect on the practice of digital forensics overall, which isn’t supportive of the science behind what we do.
Are You An Expert?
There are experts in DF/IR that have never testified in court, but their knowledge and experience far exceeds many of those who testify regularly. Conversely, there are experts who testify in court regularly who know far more than the line-level analyst, which is why they are put forth as experts on the stand. Knowing something well and being an “expert” often go hand-in-hand, but the standards don’t always reflect that.
It is a truism of digital forensics that what we do is highly technical, specialized and necessary in modern litigation. It’s also a truism that the data interpretation is often over-simplified, misunderstood and sometimes faulty. No one should take a medical professional as a “surgical expert” just because they completed medical school. Being a surgeon – or an expert one – requires years of not only education, but increasingly complex and difficult practice.
DF/IR is no different, and in fact, I’d posit that digital forensic experts are far less common than medical experts, which is why our skills are not only in demand, but high-value. Not everyone needs a surgeon in their life. Virtually everyone uses a smartphone daily. Just like the accomplished surgeon, knowing and articulating the nuances of the evidence presented is often where the distinction of ability vs expertise becomes apparent.
The ultimate deciding authority on whether or not you’re an expert is the Court, but beyond that, could also be the appellate court or Supreme Court. This means credentials, analysis, methods, findings and conclusions can be audited at any time leading up to, during and after trial. The gravity of what you do as an expert cannot be overstated, which is probably what leads to a degree of arrogance among some experts. That said, a level of humility must also be part of a well-rounded expert. You don’t know everything. And the moment you think you do, someone will come along and correct you, perhaps to an embarrassing or very public degree.
Nobody wants that, least of all you. So nourish your expert designation. Appreciate, hone and refine it. If you haven’t gotten there yet, keep working at it. One day, you’ll issue your first expert declaration, give your first testimony or be appointed by the Court as an expert. It’s an important role to fill, which is why it matters so much, even in an age where everyone thinks they’re an “expert”.
About the Author:
Patrick Siewert served 15 years in full-time law enforcement and investigated hundreds of high-tech crimes to precedent-setting results, Patrick is a graduate of SCERS & BCERT and is a court-certified expert witness in digital forensics, mobile forensics and historical cell site location analysis. He has published dozens of articles and is cited in numerous academic papers. He was the Founder & Principal Consultant of Pro Digital Forensic Consulting, based in Richmond, Virginia (USA) and currently serves as Director of Digital Forensics and E-Discovery for a Nationwide (US) provider of DF/IR and e-disco litigation support services, while keeping in touch with the public safety community as a Law Enforcement Instructor in multiple disciplines.
Email: Patrick@ProDigital4n6.com
Patrick Siewert on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-siewert-92513445/
Patrick Siewert on X/Twitter : @RVA4n6
Pro Digital (old) blog site : https://prodigital4n6.blogspot.com/