Digital Evidence Under Legal Realism: Extralegal Factors Determining The Mario Dandy Verdict
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The integration of digital evidence into criminal proceedings exposes critical normative gaps within Indonesian evidentiary laws, compelling judges to navigate procedural vacuums. Employing a sociolegal methodology with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, this study examines the Mario Dandy verdict through Legal Realism. Findings reveal that judges compensate for absent forensic guidelines by converting digital data into conventional taxonomies and delegating evidentiary authority to technocrats. Consequently, judicial conviction is profoundly determined by extralegal factors, including cognitive biases from intense sociopolitical pressure, technological illiteracy, and systemic infrastructural disparities. This epistemological vulnerability inherently threatens the equality of arms principle within modern courts. To mitigate this structural anomaly, recent formal statutory revisions remain technically insufficient. Therefore, this article proposes institutionalizing an Electronic Evidence Reliability Framework mandating algorithmic audits, hashing standards, and comprehensive judicial digital literacy. This mandatory framework is an absolute prerequisite to restore structural equilibrium between technological utility and due process of law.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Agatha, Claudia, and R. Rahaditya. “Fragmented Digital Forensic Standards in Indonesian Criminal Evidence.” Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review 21, no. 2 (May 20, 2026). https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v21i2.1558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v21i2.1558
Al-Hasani, Abdulaziz, Wasin Alkishr, and Mahmood Al-Bahri. “A Deepfake Detection System for Law Enforcement Applications Using Xception.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3191, no. 1 (April 1, 2026): 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/3191/1/012006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/3191/1/012006
Bakhtiar, Handar Subhandi, and Suryani Alawiyah. “Peranan Bukti Digital Forensik Dalam Pembuktian Penganiayaan Berat Berencana Kasus Terdakwa Mario Dandy Satriyo Dkk Terhadap David Ozora.” Journal of Multidisciplinary Inquiry in Science, Technology and Educational Research 2, no. 1 (2025): 234–49. https://jurnal-serambimekkah.org/index.php/mister/article/view/2407/1971.
Bakhtiar, Handar Subhandi, Amir Ilyas, Abdul Kholiq, Handina Sulastrina Bakhtiar, and Ahmad Yusup. “The Role of Forensic Evidence in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice.” Forensic Science International: Synergy 12 (June 2026): 100693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2026.100693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2026.100693
Bhatti, Novera. “The Use of Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings.” American Journal of Society and Law 5, no. 1 (March 30, 2026): 10–19. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v5i1.7211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v5i1.7211
Blažič, Borka Jerman, and Tomaž Klobučar. “Removing the Barriers in Cross-Border Crime Investigation by Gathering e-Evidence in an Interconnected Society.” Information & Communications Technology Law 29, no. 1 (January 2, 2020): 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1705035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1705035
Buana, Mirza Satria. “Legal-Political Paradigm of Indonesian Constitutional Court: Defending a Principled Instrumentalist Court.” Constitutional Review 6, no. 1 (June 2, 2020): 36–66. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev612
Bystranowski, Piotr, Bartosz Janik, Maciej Próchnicki, and Paulina Skórska. “Anchoring Effect in Legal Decision-Making: A Meta-Analysis.” Law and Human Behavior 45, no. 1 (February 2021): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000438
Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 17 (April 26, 2011): 6889–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
Dewi. M, Nur Sari, and Muslem Muslem. “The Validity of Artificial Intelligence Evidence in the Judicial System: A Juridical Analysis.” Jurisprudensi: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah, Perundang-Undangan Dan Ekonomi Islam 17, no. 2 (October 18, 2025): 320–34. https://doi.org/10.32505/jurisprudensi.v17i2.11022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32505/jurisprudensi.v17i2.11022
Edmond, G., J. M. Tangen, R. A. Searston, and I. E. Dror. “Contextual Bias and Cross-Contamination in the Forensic Sciences: The Corrosive Implications for Investigations, Plea Bargains, Trials and Appeals.” Law, Probability and Risk 14, no. 1 (March 1, 2015): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018
Green, Ben, and Yiling Chen. “The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, no. CSCW (November 7, 2019): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3359152
Horsman, Graeme. “Tool Testing and Reliability Issues in the Field of Digital Forensics.” Digital Investigation 28 (March 2019): 163–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.01.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.01.009
Kocagül, Hülya, and Melik Kartal. “AI, Evidentiary Authority, and the Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings.” Laws 15, no. 3 (June 22, 2026): 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws15030058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws15030058
Mlambo, Tafadzwa, and Yi Ting Chua. “From Courtroom to Classroom: Advancing Digital Evidence Competency in Legal Education and Practice.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 37, no. 2 (April 3, 2026): 256–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2025.2606736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2025.2606736
Noor, Afif. “Socio-Legal Research: Integration of Normative and Empirical Juridical Research in Legal Research.” Jurnal Ilmiah Dunia Hukum 7, no. 2 (April 27, 2023): 94. https://doi.org/10.56444/jidh.v7i2.3154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56444/jidh.v7i2.3154
Putusan Nomor Mahkamah Konstitusi 20/PUU-XIV/2016 mengenai Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (2016).
Putusan PN Jakarta Selatan Nomor 297/Pid.B/2023/PN Jkt.Sel (2023).
Romero-Moreno, Felipe. “Deepfake Detection in Generative AI: A Legal Framework Proposal to Protect Human Rights.” Computer Law & Security Review 58 (September 2025): 106162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106162
Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik, LNRI Tahun 2024 Nomor 3, TLN Nomor 6922 (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.53697/jkomitek.v5i2.3155
Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia (LNRI) Tahun 2008 Nomor 58, Tambahan Lembaran Negara (TLN) Nomor 4843 (2008).
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, LNRI Tahun 2025 (2025).
Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia (LNRI) Tahun 1981 Nomor 76, Tambahan Lembaran Negara (TLN) Nomor 3209 (1981).
Werluka, Lorens. “Alat Bukti Yang Sah Dalam Pembuktian Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana.” Jurnal Belo 4, no. 2 (February 28, 2019): 228–48. https://doi.org/10.30598/belovol4issue2page228-248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30598/belovol4issue2page228-248
Yasir, Muhammad. “The Position of Digital Evidence in The KUHAP Evidence System Normative Analysis and Implementation Challenges.” International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) 5, no. 3 (May 30, 2025): 3744–51. https://radjapublika.com/index.php/IJERLAS/article/view/3852.