Common questions about expert witness services
Joe Sremack holds an M.S. in Computer Science from North Carolina State University and a B.A. in Computer Science and Philosophy from The College of Wooster. With over 20 years of forensic technology experience, he has consulted on more than 500 matters and served as expert witness across multiple jurisdictions.
He is the author of AI Forensics: Investigation and Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Systems (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2026) and Big Data Forensics (Packt, 2015). He holds three professional certifications: Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA), and Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US).
Joe provides expert witness and consulting services across three main practice areas:
Yes. Joe has provided expert services in courts across multiple jurisdictions, including state courts, federal courts, and international arbitrations. He is available for in-person testimony, remote depositions, and virtual trial proceedings nationwide.
Testifying Expert: Joe provides formal expert opinions, written reports, deposition testimony, and trial testimony. His analysis and opinions become part of the case record and are subject to discovery.
Consulting Expert: Joe provides non-testifying advisory support, including case strategy development, technical analysis, and opposing expert critique. Work product is typically protected from discovery.
Joe has provided expert services across virtually every major industry, including technology, healthcare, financial services, insurance, energy, manufacturing, retail, and government. His experience spans matters ranging from Silicon Valley trade secret disputes to healthcare compliance to financial services fraud investigations.
Joe analyzes the full spectrum of artificial intelligence systems, including:
Joe provides expert testimony and consulting in AI-related cases involving:
Black-box analysis is a forensic methodology for evaluating AI system behavior without access to the underlying source code. Joe uses systematic testing to analyze inputs and outputs, identify patterns, measure performance, and detect potential issues like bias or inconsistent behavior. This approach is valuable when source code is unavailable, protected, or when independent verification of system behavior is required.
Joe performs comprehensive source code analysis across multiple programming languages, including Python, R, C#, Java, C++, JavaScript, Go, Rust, Swift, and proprietary languages. His analysis covers code structure, algorithms, business logic, and software architecture.
Repository forensics involves the analysis of source code version control systems to trace code history, establish authorship, and reconstruct development timelines. Joe conducts repository forensics on GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps, and enterprise systems, examining commit histories, branch structures, and collaboration patterns to support trade secret, patent, and employment disputes.
Joe provides expert services in software-related litigation including:
Joe uses systematic methodologies to compare codebases, examining structural similarities, algorithmic approaches, variable naming patterns, comment artifacts, and development history. His analysis distinguishes between legitimate independent development, common industry practices, and potential misappropriation, providing clear documentation suitable for legal proceedings.
Joe analyzes data from a wide range of sources, including:
Joe provides forensic data analysis in cases involving:
Joe has served as expert in some of the largest financial investigations in recent history, including three of the largest Ponzi schemes — among them the Bernie Madoff matter — as well as major stock option backdating investigations, mortgage-backed security fraud cases, and international regulatory compliance matters.
Joe develops clear, compelling data visualizations that communicate complex findings to non-technical audiences. His approach emphasizes accuracy, clarity, and accessibility, translating technical analysis into visual presentations that support legal arguments without oversimplifying the underlying data.
Early case assessment involves a preliminary technical evaluation to help counsel understand the key technical issues, identify relevant evidence sources, assess the strength of technical arguments, and anticipate potential challenges. This allows legal teams to make informed decisions about case strategy before committing to full expert engagement.
Yes. Joe has experience serving as a court-appointed technical expert and special master for discovery disputes, forensic protocol development, and technical fact-finding. In this neutral role, he provides independent technical analysis to assist the court in resolving complex technology issues.
To discuss a potential engagement, please contact Joe directly with a brief description of the matter, the relevant timeline, and the jurisdiction. All inquiries are confidential. Joe will review the matter and respond promptly to discuss whether his expertise aligns with your needs.