You speak from the Canadian aspect, I am in UK! We have different but similar procedures I have experience of presenting photographic evidence in front of a jury and shooting down a defence question about accuracy. So long as the continuation trail is complete and the evidence can be cross referenced then the risk of questioning the accuracy is reduced to virtually nil.
As for forensic evidence about stab wounds that is not in the scope of this thread. That is a totally different matter dealt with outside my scope. What this does show that that either film or digital evidence can hold its own in a court if presented in a straightforward and accurate way, with all the 'T's crossed and all the 'i's dotted.
Neither version of the drone video evidence showed what was needed to be shown, in order to support what either the prosecutor or the defence said it supported.
The jury ignored it, and acquitted the accused.
I understand what you are saying. I'm saying that the photographic evidence alone wouldn't have been sufficient to prove the case. The continuity issue is about the quality of the photographic evidence, not its sufficiency.
We share a lot of evidence law with the UK.
I am not saying photographic evidence alone would convict, but that is NOT the point, The discussion was film digital better for truth. My reply encompassed this and my conclusion was, there was not a lot between them so long as the evidence continuity was complete and intact. The proof I mentioned in my first post, referred to the proof of the identity of the suspect, not the actual act of wounding. They all tied together quite nicely.
When I started out in early 1960's I was using a MPP 5x4 camera where the negatives in B&W were a lot fewer and far between and easier to keep track of case by case. Even a serious road crash rarely had more than 8 or 9 pictures which I processed and printed - No lab technician in those days! This lasted more or less intact until I retired in 2000, when I was using a Pentax 6x7 and colour negative and an automated processor which I operated..
With todays plethora of digital cameras, mobile phones, whatever, I don't envy the exhibits officer having to keep track of everything in the correct order to present it before a jury.
The dispute was what I explained it to be. The prosecutor submitted a tampered version of the original to prove guilt. The original version proved the defendant's innocence.
Let me guess: you did not add or delete items from the photographs which you presented, right?
I am not saying photographic evidence alone would convict, but that is NOT the point, The discussion was film digital better for truth.
How do you know the jury ignored it? You weren't in the jury. In any case, the point is editing created a major legal issue. That's what we're discussing, Not how the jury decided.
Here's another article.
Kyle Rittenhouse defense asks for mistrial over drone video evidence
The defense team in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has asked for a mistrial over disputed drone video.www.wisn.com
If the jury voted to convict, then the issue to declare a mistrial would have been on the table for the judge to initially decide. Only if he didn't decide to declare a mistrial could it have become an issue on appeals.There was no legal issue created by the result. No mistrial was ordered. Instead, the judge let the jury continue, and the jury voted to acquit.
All the argument about the video was immaterial, even if people were interested in it.
If the judge had ordered a mistrial, it would have created an interesting legal issue in a subsequent appeal.
If the jury had relied on the video and the prosecution's characterization of it, and voted to convict, then it would have created an interesting legal issue in a subsequent appeal.
But instead, it was just a matter of curiosity, and nothing really came of it.
Let me guess: you did not add or delete items from the photographs which you presented, right?
That is where the discussion started.
The issue I'm referencing here is the argument that has been made that the film based photograph must be better for establishing truth because of how useful it is as evidence in court.
And that is something that is seriously misunderstood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?