The judge is simply ignorant about the tech and he knows it. You can see the look on his face, everyting in him is telling him the prosecution is lying, but he doesn't understand the tech well enough to craft an argument to throw at them. He wants the defense lawyers to bring in an expert to explain it. He's stuck where he is.
The judge is simply ignorant about the tech and he knows it. You can see the look on his face, everyting in him is telling him the prosecution is lying, but he doesn't understand the tech well enough to craft an argument to throw at them. He wants the defense lawyers to bring in an expert to explain it. He's stuck where he is.
Is someone bri he evidence in that he doesn't understand he has the obligation to have proof that the evidence is true m, clean and Unmessed with.
If you can prove it's original it's not allowed.
I think you’re right. I think lawyers will now need a tech aid at all times to point out technology fraud