This case involves two things that are very interesting for this audience: 1) Cell phone data was used as evidence to convict him. It later came out that at th

This case involves two things that are very interesting for this audience: 1) Cell phone data was used as evidence to convict him. It later came out that at the time it wasn't that accurate and that the prosecution misled the jury about it (perhaps based on the prosecution not understanding the data either). Also of interest was how much trouble the judge, prosecutors and jury had with making sense of this data. Cell phone location data is way better today, but when this kind of data first became available -- much like DNA evidence -- juries have trouble making sense of it. 2) This trial is also interesting from a DNA evidence perspective. A lot of people feel that DNA evidence makes a case ope and shut, but everyone involved with this case was purported to be friends. So, what does some small amount of DNA evidence mean in a case like this? I find this trial is also interesting as we look at data from home AI speakers. I get the sense that we may have a few trials like this coming up in the future where the quality or type of data that a home AI speaker records is misunderstood, and it leads to bad evidence being shared.