It was a crucial moment in 2007 during the
trial of Paul Cortez, an actor and yoga teacher who was ultimately convicted of
killing his former girlfriend Catherine Woods, a dancer who was working as a
stripper.
After weeks of testimony and a parade of
witnesses, the case against Mr. Cortez boiled down to this: a bloody
fingerprint and data collected from a cell phone.
A record from a T-Mobile cell phone
transmission tower on the day Ms. Woods was murdered showed that Mr. Cortez
called her 13 times in the hour and a half before her death, and then never
again. He had told the police in a written statement that he made the calls
from his home.
But as he called, the record showed his cell
signal hitting a tower near his apartment, and gradually shifting to towers near
Ms. Woods’s apartment. At trial, when the prosecutor questioned him about the
discrepancy, Mr. Cortez changed course, saying he had made some of the calls
from a Starbucks.
Examining cell phone data is a technique
that has moved from being a masterful surprise in trials to being a standard
tool in the investigative arsenal of the police and prosecutors, with records
routinely provided by cell phone companies in response to subpoenas.
Its use in
prosecutions is often challenged, for privacy reasons and for technical
reasons, especially when the data comes during the morning or evening rush,
when circuits are crowded and calls can be redirected to other towers. But it
is often allowed and is used by both prosecutors and defence attorneys to
buttress their cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment