The youtube vide of the guy getting “thrown” off the bridge on the main page got me to thinking. How much longer will lawyers be able to use photo and video evidence in court before people just stop believing it anymore. it has become so easy to doctor up photos and videos now that it is really becoming difficult to believe what you are seeing nowadays. And it will only get easier and harder to discredit them in the future.
Of course, then there are the people who will believe anything they see without questioning the validity of anything. Get 12 of those folks on a jury and I would think it would be pretty easy to frame someone/convict the wrong person.
You still have to lay foundation for the video and/or photo before introducing it into evidence. So, you need to have someone who can testify, under oath, that the video and/or picture is a “fair and accurate representation” of the item or event. So, someone has to authenticate the item, which can be done in a number of ways.
The person who took the photo or video can testify that what is depicted actually happened.
In the case of a security camera, for example, in which no human ever “took” the picture, it becomes more difficult. You have to put someone on the stand that can testify about how the video was taken and that it has not been tampered with.
In any case, experts may be called in to review the item and testify regarding the authenticity. Interesting, the latest and greatest form of video taping and photographing (i.e., digital) is catching a lot of flak lately b/c of the ability to manipulate the image. It used to be easier to tell whether analog tape was tampered with. Now, it is getting more and more difficult.
can’t you essentially get an “expert” to say just about anything for the correct amount of money though? Especially if anything needs to be interpreted in the photo/video.
I see what you are saying though, I can just see some huge potential for people to use photos/videos to “prove” things that aren’t really true. I think this could especially be more true in civil court when you are suing someone. But maybe I am too naive regarding the court system.
Well, yes and no. The big joke is that you can get an expert to say anything. That is true on some issues that are controversial or a close call. However, getting an expert to “lie” and say something is fake when it is real or vice versa is very difficult.
I had a case a few years ago that ultimately hinged on an e-mail. In playing with the e-mail, I figured out it was a fake. I hired an expert who proved that it was a fake. Opposing counsel hired an expert to testify that it “could” be true. But, I had my expert pick apart the depo of their expert, then took a second depo and sliced and diced their expert. They dropped their case against my client.
As technology advances, I agree that, at some point, it may be very, very difficult to authenticate some of this type of evidence.
From my experience, however, photos and video are rare in most cases. Usually it hinges on witness testimony. If there are pictures and/or video, they usually support the witness testimony, rather than standing alone.
Thanks for the responses. I find this stuff fascinating. What about a witness who remembers incorrectly if/when they see something posted on the news/internet that later turns out to be false/fabricated? But they convince themself they saw something they really didn’t.
I suppose I could go on and on with lots of various scenarios. But I see what you are saying. I suppose that is whate experts and lawyers are for after all. 
The email would be been pretty easy to disprove just based on the message ID’s. Can’t fake those unless a person knows how to hack a server and insert message id’s in the proper places. That would be quite difficult.
You get into all sorts of interesting scenarios when you deal with witness recollection. You can use a picture to refresh a witness’s recollection without actually introducing the picture into evence (thus the jury never sees it). I have actually done that. Opposing counsel gets to see the picture and can decide whether to offer it. It gets sticky.
Regarding the fake e-mail, it was a pretty good job. The complainant took a real e-mail and doctered the contents of the e-mail. So, the e-mail itself was real, but, the contents had been altered. We could not tell that when we first reviewed the printed copy of the e-mail. Plus, the e-mail was from a co-worker who, at the time, we suspected was friends with the complainant. So, at the time, we did not have a strong basis for questioning the authenticity. It wasn’t until we confronted the sender that we learned that the contents were fake (because the sender denied ever writing what was written in the e-mail. Then we had to prove the e-mail was actually fake for two reasons: (1) keep it from being used against us and (2) prove that the complainant committed fraud by introducing a false document.
Pretty foolish of the complainant to try this. She should have known we would figure it out. Her goal was to get us to settle quickly without going to trial or looking into her evidence.
How does this work for ‘‘red light’’ cameras and video/photographic speeding infractions? Surely the city, county, or state is not going to send an ‘‘expert’’ to each case that goes in front of a judge.
They usually have someone from the dept that shows up if any of these tickets are contested. It is usually an officer or support person who explains how the device works, verifies that the machine was working, verifies calibration data (if any), and verifies chain of custody of the film.
Not sure who would hire an expert to contest a speeding ticket and I doubt the judge would listen very long unless there was evidence the machine was not calibrated, etc.