LISBON — A hearing to determine whether “Trax” software-generated maps related to cellular phone location evidence in the William P. Long Jr. aggravated murder case can be used at trial will continue at 2 p.m. Dec. 8.

Prosecutors are expected to present a “Trax” representative to testify about the program the defense has been challenging as allegedly unreliable, unvalidated and unaccepted by any recognized forensic community.

During a hearing Tuesday, Columbiana County Common Pleas Judge Megan Bickerton said she was inclined to hear a limited amount of testimony after hearing both sides arguing for and against holding a Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of the challenged evidence. The only witness called was the defense team’s hired expert, James Stafford, a forensic examiner with 20 years experience. When the prosecution indicated they could have a witness from “Trax” come to testify at a later date, she agreed to allow that to happen during the December hearing, with the understanding that the name must be provided to the defense.

During Stafford’s testimony, it was also learned that he had prepared another report, which had not been provided to the state, so she advised the defense needed to turn over that report.

Long, 51, North Market Street, Lisbon, was charged in May 2024 with aggravated murder and murder, both unclassified felonies, along with first-degree felony discharging a firearm upon a roadway, and firearm specifications for use of a gun for each count, in the death of 50-year-old Michelle A. Long on Nov. 29, 2023 outside her Carey Road home in Butler Township. She was his ex-wife and a teacher at Leetonia High School.

His jury trial is now set for Feb. 3 and he remains jailed under a $1.5 million cash or surety bond.

The discussion regarding “Trax” started with the filing of a motion by defense attorneys David Betras and Frank Cassese who had asked the court to conduct what’s called a Daubert hearing, to determine the admissibility of the challenged evidence, and to exclude all exhibits related to “Trax”-generated maps, plots or analysis and to preclude any witness from offering opinions or conclusions based on “Trax” or other unverified GPS data.

The cellular location evidence and “Trax” analysis allegedly places Long near the scene of the 2023 homicide at the critical time when the victim was shot to death in her vehicle while getting her mail.

During questioning from Bickerton, Betras said he was saying the location software used in the case was flawed. He said the defense expert will say it’s not reliable science.

Columbiana County Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer McLaughlin Bonish, though, argued that cellular location data has been used in other cases and it’s not without judicial scrutiny or analysis. She pointed out that some of the numbers the expert determined from the cell phone location information were the same as what “Trax” came up with. If they came up with the same numbers as “Trax,” she asked doesn’t that speak to the reliability of the “Trax” program?

Bickerton also questioned Betras on what particular evidence he was trying to keep out related to “Trax,” with Betras talking about a map created by the state based off of the “Trax” program. When Bickerton said she was having a hard time understanding how it’s scientific, calling it more of a math problem, Cassese said what it’s generating all the information is not scientifically reliable.

During Stafford’s testimony while being questioned by Betras, he talked about the potential for error with “Trax,” the lack of peer review and the fact that the program has not been published in any scientific journal. He said it was not generally accepted by the scientific community. He also admitted he had never seen “Trax” before this case.

“Does any of the data place William Long at the victim’s house at 5:44 p.m.?” Betras asked, with Stafford saying, “no.”

During questioning by county Assistant Prosecutor Alec Beech, he was asked if he had ever used “Trax” and he said no and also admitted to never working with it to check his numbers.

“Don’t you think that would be important?” Beech asked.

When asked how he conducted his independent investigation of “Trax” related to this case, he said he first did a Google search and had a discussion with an expert in a court case related to “Trax” and also based his opinion on a podcast he watched and a paper he read regarding the program.

The judge also questioned him then, noting that when asked of he used the “Trax” program to analyze the data provided, he said no.

“Don’t you think the best evidence would be to use the program you’re trying to discredit?” she said.

He had also testified that the FBI wasn’t using “Trax” but Bickerton looked it up herself and found that the FBI does use it.

Beech also questioned him again about being comfortable relying on a paper about “Trax” rather than testing it himself. Stafford said he tried to contact the company to get a copy of the program but didn’t hear back from them until last Friday, which was too late. He did not contact the county sheriff’s office or prosecutor’s office for a copy of the program. He said he was initially contacted this past summer by the defense about the case, but wasn’t retained until September or October.

Still pending in the case are decisions regarding defense motions to suppress evidence from search warrants, with three of the warrant decisions to be handled by Bickerton and the rest by retired Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge William T. McGinty, who was assigned to rule regarding search warrants that were issued by Bickerton.