Well, thank you, Dan! :-) Every so often, shadows of my past life are drawn out of dark quarters of my mind by memory triggers. I guess this thread is one of those triggers...
BTW, my comments related to criminal trials, but the same rules of evidence regarding exhibits would apply to civil trials as well (just in case anyone was wondering). My work is done here; I'm off to another thread to see what havoc I can wreak. regards, frank "Daniel J. Matyola" wrote: > I agree with you completely, Frank. > > frank theriault wrote: > > > Well, I haven't done a trial in many years, but I think that what many > > here (obviously not you, Dan) don't realize, is that the vast majority > > of photographs submitted as exhibits in a trial are ~not~ > > controversial. They depict crime scenes - where the "body" was found, a > > smashed window where entry to a premises was gained - that sort of > > thing. It saves the trier of fact (meaning the jury, or if there's no > > jury, the judge) from having to go to the crime scene to get an idea of > > the physical lay of the land, so to speak. > > > > In my experience, the only photos of a crime scene taken by police > > officers that didn't make it as exhibits, are ones that everyone agreeed > > were accurate depictions - they were the autopsy photos of the victim of > > an axe murder. They were so gory that they would have had a prejudicial > > effect on the jury, and both the prosecutors and defence agreed that > > they shouldn't go in. > > > > Once the guy who took the picture (usually a police officer) says under > > oath that he took it, that it accurately represents what he saw at the > > time, and then establishes the chain of possession up to the trial date, > > it's made an exhibit. Period. > > > > I shouldn't see that it makes any difference if the image is digital or > > from a negative. > > > > Once it's made an exhibit, it's up to the trier of fact to decide how > > much "weight" to put on that exhibit, just as any other piece of > > evidence. Of course, the defence lawyer always has an opportunity to > > cross-examine the witness who seeks to have the photo made an exhibit, > > and at that time may (if the image is contentious) ask questions about > > framing, cropping, manipulation of any kind, etc. That goes for any > > image, no matter how produced. The effectiveness of that > > cross-examination may or may not affect the trier of fact in deciding > > how much weight the exhibit has. > > > > Just because an image was obtained digitally won't affect it's weight > > ~in and of itself~, imho. The amount of manipulation and the context in > > which it was taken will - and that type of evidence will be drawn out by > > cross-examination. > > > > Mind you, I'm applying my now fading memory of the law of evidence, > > which was admittedly acquired prior to the advent of the digital era... -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
