Supreme Court of Connecticut Finds FitBit Data Was Properly Admitted to Contradict Defendant’s Claim That His Wife Was Killed By An Intruder With a Voice Like Vin Diesel

The Supreme Court of Connecticut has affirmed the conviction of Richard G. Dabate for murdering his wife, finding that evidence from her FitBit that contradicted his claims was properly admitted.

In State v. Dabate, 351 Conn. 428 (Conn. 2025), 

The state…relied on evidence to establish a timeline that contradicted the defendant’s version of events. This evidence included movement data from the victim’s Fitbit that conflicted with the defendant’s statement of when the shooting occurred and his claim that the victim had run from the intruder into the basement.

Specifically,

Dabate testified in his defense and maintained his innocence, saying a large masked man with a voice like actor Vin Diesel was the killer.

But,

State police said Dabate gave them a timeline of events that conflicted with data on his wife’s Fitbit, which showed she was moving around for about an hour after the time Dabate said she was shot.

Dabate appealed, claiming that data from FitBit is insufficiently reliable to be admissible, concluding as follows:

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the relevant Porter factors and finding the data from the victim’s Fitbit sufficiently reliable to be admissible scientific evidence. The court reasonably credited Diaz’ testimony about his clinical research, which was funded through a grant from the National Institutes of Health, to establish the accuracy of Fitbit devices, and, specifically, Fitbit One, the Fitbit model that the victim wore on the day of the murder. Diaz, who is the director of the Wearable Device Reading Center at Columbia University Medical Center, spoke extensively about his research, describing the “validation study” and its finding that the Fitbit device is very accurate at measuring steps; indeed, it is more accurate than a research grade device, the Actical, at measuring both steps and energy expenditure. Diaz also described the publication and peer review process that supported the validation study. Diaz explained his review of the many other published studies regarding the accuracy rate of Fitbit One. Diaz indicated that the most accurate measurement is obtained when the Fitbit is worn on the hip, as the victim in the present case wore hers. Although he did not test the specific Fitbit worn by the victim, the trial court nonetheless allowed Diaz to offer expert testimony as to the accuracy of Fitbit devices in general.

-CM