Google Logs Help Convict Husband Accused of Murdering Wife

CNET reports on a conviction based in part on search query logs from Google that was upheld on appeal:

A physical search of Justin’s computer revealed that a few months before the murder, he had searched for terms including “trauma, cases, gunshot, right chest” and “Florida & divorce.” Prosecutors had also discovered that the defendant downloaded a suggestive Guns N’ Roses song called “Used to Love Her” and then deleted it a few weeks later, after his wife’s death.

The lyrics: “I used to love her, but I had to kill her / I had to put her / Six feet under / And I can still hear her complain.”

The jury convicted Justin and he was sentenced to life in prison. He appealed on grounds that the evidence was wholly circumstantial and insufficient for conviction. A Florida state appeals court upheld his conviction and sentence.

At first blush this may be surprising and prompt responses like: I’d better be careful what I search for. It also might make people think that there’s a first amendment problem lurking somewhere in here.

However the search queries were used as evidence of the husband’s mens rea — or guilty mind. It would be very similar to a third party (say a co-worker or associate of the husband) repeating in court a conversation that he was a part of in which the husband said things that were suggestive of a desire to kill his wife. That would constitute hearsay but would be allowed in under one of the numerous criminal hearsay exceptions.

Unless there’s eyewitness testimony or its equivalent (video) or DNA evidence, most criminal convictions rely on some degree of circumstantial evidence and require the jury to draw inferences of guilt or intent from that evidence.

Increasingly this sort of search query evidence is coming in to show intent or otherwise to support a finding of criminal behavior. Indeed, search query logs have been called “the database of intentions.” In this case that was also true — in a much more sinister way.

Related Topics: Channel: Industry | Google: Legal

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Contributing Editor at Search Engine Land. He writes a personal blog Screenwerk, about SoLoMo issues and connecting the dots between online and offline. He also posts at Internet2Go, which is focused on the mobile Internet. Follow him @gsterling.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://blog.vkistudios.com BrianKatz

    Hi Greg
    I am compelled to comment on some ambiguity in this article that is damaging to the industry in which you and I work.

    There is a lot of unhealthy paranoia out there regarding visitor privacy.
    Knowing what visitors do in the aggregate and without any personally identifiable information is innocuous and helpful. Web-site owners can use that data to improve their sites and visitors will have improved websites to visit.

    The opening sentence ” .. based in part on search query logs from Google … ” misleads readers to believe that Google had all the data necessary to tie the search query to Justin.

    Does that quote refer to “A physical search of Justin’s computer revealed” or was that done after Google had provided data from their own servers.

    It requires far more thought than most readers have time for to realize that one cannot go to Google until the search terms are extracted by physical search.

    The result is that readers walk away unnecessarily heightened paranoia.

    Google, in particular, is upfront and honest about its use of data. (See http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy_faq.html)

    Brian Katz – VKI Studios

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide