63% of public defender cases have video evidence but no tools to review it

63% of public defenders report that the majority of their cases involve audiovisual evidence — body camera footage, surveillance video, cell phone recordings — yet nearly all of them process this evidence through manual review: physically watching, interpreting, and transcribing video with a word processor. Two-thirds spend over 10 hours per month just on evidence review. Meanwhile, prosecutors receive digital forensics tools, dedicated analysts, and law enforcement support for evidence processing. The consequence is direct: public defenders miss exculpatory video clips buried in hours of footage, overlook contradictions between police reports and body camera recordings, and produce rushed transcripts that cannot hold up in court. Defendants lose because evidence that could prove their innocence goes unreviewed. This gap persists because digital forensics tool markets cater almost exclusively to law enforcement, and public defender offices lack the budget to purchase commercial evidence review platforms even when they exist.